[geocentrism] Re: papal infallibility

Philip,
I agree with your good explanations about papal infallibility.  Even if I 
didn't mention explicitly that a pope could fall into error (heresy), I believe 
I did mention it implicitly (since the pope is not always infallible, it must 
be assumed that he could fall into error (heresy) just like any other christian 
- otherwise he would always be infallible)!  
However I don't agree with your (sede vacantist) opinion (but I give you a good 
note for admitting it is only an opinion), because it has no real support in 
the Church's Tradition (and history)... and because of that is simply not 
catholic.   

I suggest that you avoid that opinion when you give your explanation to truth 
seeking people in order not to confuse them.

Remember one of the most quoted verse that support papal infallibility: «But I 
have prayed for thee, that thy Faith fail not; and when thou art converted, 
strengten thy brethren.» (St-Luke 22: 32)  In other words, that prayer of our 
Lord goes for all the successors of St-Peter (popes) as well as the last part 
of the verse : when you come back from your erring (caused by Satan), confirm 
thy brethren in the Faith.  So Satan can bring into error (heresy) a pope but 
the Lord's prayer will prevent the pope to maintain the error(s) - it is only a 
matter of time before the pope comes back to the Faith (that somehow he never 
really lost because of our Lord's prayer).

When pope Liberius fell into semi-arianism and excommunicated St-Athanasius, he 
was nevertheless still considered as the successor of St-Peter (the pope) by 
St-Athanasius and all the faithfull Fathers of the Church.  And even if pope 
Honorius was condemned as an heretic by a dogmatic council he was nevertheless 
always considered as a true pope by all the Church.
May Our Lady of Fatima guide you,
Marc V.


----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
Sent: 16 avril 2007 05:20
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: papal infallibility

  
Neville, you wrote a good letter, and I have to think a little harder to do it 
justice of a intelligent reply. However Marc gave me the opening to clarify one 
question you posited.
\
Marc failed to mention, not only is the popes book or books or pronouncements 
or actions not infallible outside of an "excathedra' declaration, they can be , 
and as far as the post V2 popes are, often heretical.   

This Neville, is by way of explaining  "real Catholics". A heretic cannot be a 
member of the Church of Jesus Christ. We divide the word heretic into 
subjective and formal.. Even though anyone including a Pope commits heresy 
subjectively, one cannot be declared formally as a heretic without a trial. 
After being called to trial if one fails to submit and repent he denies the 
church and is declared a heretic. Thats a "formal heretic".  

However the Pope is the supreme head after Jesus Himself of the church. We can 
accuse him of a heretical statement , we can ask him to repair the damage, but 
we cannot bring him to trial. None on earth can make the formal judgement. Why? 
Because, apart from none having the higher authority,  none can know the state 
of his mind as to the guilt, save God Himself. I cannot know your mind. Below 
that position, the case can be cut and dried. A superior can inform the heretic 
that he is in error, ask him to retract, and so on.   

Why do I hold the opinion that this is not the real catholic church that holds 
the seat of power in Rome? Why do I hold that the true church is in exile, 
without a viable or conscientious leader? Because there is an exception to the 
rule I put above. In the real church of the past, the cardinals would by 
majority censure an errant and heretical pope, as has been done in the past. 
Todays cardinals however are complicit not only in the popes errors, but have 
many scandals of their own, and so on down through the Bishops to the majority 
of pleasure seeking laity. The new orientation church panders to pagan 
pleasures.

That is the sign of the world we live in today, and a prophecy of a great 
apostasy. Oh yes these may be valid clerics, but apostates or heretics 
nonetheless, and perhaps only a chastisement as seems looming today might bring 
them back to their knees in submission. A fairly ancient prophet, Catherine 
Emmerich, upon whose writings Mel Gibson produced his movie the Passion, said 
that she had a vision of a future apostate Rome, wherein the Bishops and 
cardinals were walking around in circles, but their heads were hidden in a fog. 
 

I hope that makes my position a little clearer. Unfortunately, it does not make 
me any less a sinner.

Philip.  

----- Original Message -----  
From: marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx  
To: Geocentric  
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 8:33 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: papal infallibility


For those who don't understand the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, look 
at the first book written by pope Benedict XVII on matters concerning the 
Faith, but as the pope claims in his book: «... it is not part of the 
Magisterium, everybody is free to refute me».   It doesn't matter if a pope 
says that what he writes is infallible, what makes his teachings infallible is 
when he speaks or write «ex cathedra» or when he speaks or writes the beliefs 
and teachings of the Church from the beginning.
MV

Father John Zuhlsdorf was at the presentation of the Pope’s book, Jesus of 
Nazareth in the Aula del Sinodo on Friday 13 April 2007 and offers a lengthy 
account of his first impression:  
It is not new to receive a book from a Pope. In the past, they were the fruits 
of interviews, or they were biographical or poetry. But this is a work of 
theology. That’s new. Even though it is a work of theology, it is not a 
contribution to the Magisterium. That’s new. This point was heavily stressed in 
the presser. This book is a contribution of “Joseph Ratzinger” to all who are 
interested in Jesus. The novelty of this book is its context, coming as it does 
from a Pope. . . .
http://www.popebenedictxvifanclub.com/blog/


----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
Sent: 14 avril 2007 07:56
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Forsaken Roots

We have communicated now for several years, Philip, and throughout that time I 
have always perceived you to be honest, genuine and questioning. I do not 
understand the distinction between the "real" Catholic Church and what I 
observe to be the Catholic Church, but I respect your position. However, a very 
large number of people are dishonest and you and I know from experience that 
such people extend throughout any religion, Catholicism and Judaism included.

Now, if you accept that the Devil really does exist (and I only came to this 
conclusion last year), and if you accept that he can manifest himself as an 
angel of light, then we all have to face the fact that the sole reason for 
manifesting himself thus is to lead people astray - i.e., to deceive as many as 
possible. Does this not account perfectly for the fact that there are 
apparently over 28,000 different sects, denominations, cults, ..., within the 
so-called Christian category alone. And what about the Jews and the Muslims, do 
they not argue amongst themselves as to meaning and interpretation constantly. 
The Sunnis, the Shi-ites, the Orthodox Hassidic, the Revisionist, ... We cannot 
put all of this down to lost meaning in ancient languages or translation. Even 
using our intellect, we must see that this confusion and these contradictions 
are designed, planned, deliberate.

You have used a combination of your spirit and your intellect to discount 
certain popes as being false, in doing that you have held fast to your belief 
in the fundamentals of the Catholic Church. All I have done is use my spirit 
and my intellect to reject large sections of the "Old Testament," in 
particular, based solely upon my belief in God.

Instead of never-ending debates, interpretations, word studies, etc., do we not 
instantly obtain two things simply by recognizing the Devil for what he is:

1. Harmony and agreement.
2. A view of the world which enables us to make sense of what is going on 
around us.

It is not adequate for anyone to state that the Bible is God-breathed simply 
because the Bible claims itself to be so (2 Tim. 3:16, from memory). Such a 
claim must be in harmony with the Spirit. This is where the intellect must give 
way to the joining of our spirit with the Spirit of God.

Best wishes,

Neville.


philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
but are you not in danger of abandoning your responsibility in this respect by 
accepting the conclusions of the Council of Trent, or Cardinal Belarmine (my 
apologies - I can see that I have spelt his name wrongly, but cannot remember 
the correct spelling at the moment), or Pope JP2, or whoever?  Neville..


No apology needed.  I would probably have spelt it the same way..   

However you may have misread me, but you know from experience of my previous 
utterings that "my responsibility" prevents me from falling into the trap of 
blind obedience. This is where intellect is guided by the spirit perhaps, but 
if the Spirit intervenes with every individual, then He is certainly a 
complicated and confused person, given the variety of contradictions among most 
of the people, Catholic or not Catholic.  

I would accept the Council of Trent as dogmatic, but not Bellarmine. But I 
should not entirely trust my interpretation of Trent, it being a very 
complicated Latin presentation. I would listen to Bellarmine because he was 
closer to it, and had more authority than I..  I also allow my intellect, or 
the Spirit if you prefer, to abandon almost all of what popes Paul VI , or any 
of his successors say or have said , simply because they have shown themselves 
to be either confused or anti-catholic.. more probably the latter.  

The trouble with the spirit Neville is a very troublesome problem for the 
reasons I gave.  Scripture says ( I cannot find where) we must test the Spirit 
in all things..  To do that we must have intellect and reason.  

Are we not  in danger of abandoning our responsibility in accepting the 
conclusions of men whether they be other men or ourselves, deluded as we may 
well be by false spirits.  


God must be worshipped in spirit and in truth. You cannot have one without the 
other.  Truth can be ascertained by correct reason. Discerning the Spirit 
outside of Scripture is not so cut and dried. As you have chosen to censor 
scripture, and reject large portions of it, how can you be certain of the 
authenticity of your "spirit" without intellect?  

Finally I have no dispute with this:   
it is not primarily intellect, but a striving of the spirit towards truth and 
constant prayer to request wisdom and understanding. That is why Christ states 
that we shall know the truth, rather than unravel it or work it out.  
Provided we are on track, He will give to our intellect the grace of 
comprehension.  But Neville, both you and I know people who strive with 
constant prayer , but who are on many differing tracks....So what striving, and 
on what track was Paul, when he took the road to Damascus?  

Philip.  


Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 15/04/2007 4:22 
PM

Other related posts: