Malachi Martin

[tort]

You do not know some of the most basic teachings of the faith. Are you Catholic?

Papal infallibility means that the pontiff is protected from error when teaching formally, ex cathedra, in areas of faith and morals. It most certainly does not mean that the pope does not sin. It makes no difference whatsoever if there existed popes who were not just average sinners like most of us, but downright scoundrels (as there surely were). No difference at all, because infallibility (in teaching) does not mean impeccability in character, or anything remotely close to that!

Please learn the basics of your faith, don’t come here with the anti-Catholic arguments that fundamentalist Protestants use, and possibly consider not relying on the Discovery Channel as a source of accurate Catholic theology.

This concludes my participation in this sub-discussion.

It’s not me; it’s you. You’re deliberately trying to make it look like I didn’t know what Papal Infallibility meant by taking my words out of context. I was responding to your remarks where you already defined it in your own way to me:

You wrote, in part:
“The Church teaches - infallibly - that the Magisterium is prevented from teaching moral or spiritual error by the protection of the Holy Spirit, as originating with Christ’s promise to Peter. You’re clearly denying that - or am I mistaken?”

I responded, in part: “I do not believe there is or ever has been popular support among bishops for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, particularly given that there were quite many popes who engaged in the most immoral behavior along with sacrilege.”

In other words, I don’t believe there is much support for this belief because it’s difficult to accept the idea that a pope like Pope John XII, who toasted to Satan, attempted to conjure demons, possibly raped his own mother, and deliberately changed things during mass, would be at the same time be protected by the holy spirit in teachings of faith and morals!

 

[anon52328184]

i have never heard of a Pope associated with those things. what do you base those accusations on?

 

[tort]

Just one parting detail: the doctrine of the infallibility of the See of Peter has existed in the Church from the beginning: it originates with Christ’s promise.

Practically, it is obvious from the earliest writings that the doctrine was understood by Peter’s successors and the Church at large.

One early quote: Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, asked, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence Apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?”

No, that’s your opinion based on one interpretation. Various very prominent theologians in and out of the Church don’t necessarily agree that the doctrine has existed from the beginning, even in consideration of scripture:

For example, hisotrian Brian Tierney, author of “Origins of Papal Infallibility” writes in his book “There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it”. (taken from wikipedia page).

Also see, “The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility: A Study In The Background Of Vatican”, by Richard Costigan, Catholic scholar. Hint from the book: There is no consenus among Catholic Theologans.

For historical reasons, also see: s8int.com/strossmayer.html

Aside from what’s listed at that site, there’s a long list of others.

Of course, this brings up the idea based on Vatican II official comments that the entire doctrine only applies in very narrow circumstances, and that most people have misunderstood, and therefore the criticisms don’t apply. Odd how it became so limited in scope after laundry lists of apparent applicable contradictory statements/order from popes were published contradicting the doctrine from Vatican I.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Just wanted to point out that the ‘quote’ attributed to me in #104 was taken from a post that quoted me. The words cited were not my own: no big deal, just wanted in ‘on the record’, so to speak.

 

[Fran65]

tort,

paul_f has answered your post.

Just to repeat what he said (and it is Catholic teaching)

Papal infallibility means that the pontiff is protected from error when teaching formally, ex cathedra, in areas of faith and morals. It most certainly does not mean that the pope does not sin. It makes no difference whatsoever if there existed popes who were not just average sinners like most of us, but downright scoundrels (as there surely were). No difference at all, because infallibility (in teaching) does not mean impeccability in character, or anything remotely close to that!

I’m not sure what is unclear about that.

It is also a pity that there are Catholics who are influenced by the type of faulty argument that you repeat.

We have Christ’s promise. Is that not good enough??

Karen

 

[anon52328184]

what about tort’s accusations against the Pope john XII in post #141?

what is that all about?

 

[Layman]

For me, Papal Infallibility has one beautiful function:

It stop schisms dead.

Once the Pope has pronounced, that’s it. Then we can all go back to worship, in peace.

 

[anon52328184]

evidently martin luther didn’t agree with that.

 

[Layman]

The doctrine was introduced after his time, in the late 19th century, I think.

I’m guessing the impetus was to shut up modern Luthers. Give us all a break from academics who mistake learning for wisdom.

 

[Tominellay]

I’ve enjoyed reading eight of Malachi Martin’s books, and several of these more than once…his novels are hard to put down…

 

[anon52328184]

which one would you recommend most? i haven’t read one yet.

windswept house sounds good. i don’t know if you can find them at regular retail chains or not or if they have to be ordered.

 

[tort]

I wasn’t going to do this.

But now I am going to do it.

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14932

Well, do it, then. You’ve done everything else.

When you read accusations like this, as a general rule it’s a good idea to check into the background and possible motives of the person making the accusation. This particular author has a habit of accusing people in the Church of being charlatains, that Fatima was at least a partial hoax where there were more than one Sister Lucia, etc. In this case, the attack on Martin seems to be part of a larger plot to attack the credibility of anyone who has written about and supports Fatima. Moreover, there’s a high likelihood that documents here were forged and replaced at a library archive. One person suggested to me before that the typeface used in one these documents was not yet even available on typewriters during the decade the document was supposedly typed.

 

[anon52328184]

tort, why don’t you tell me more about Pope John XII and the accusations you made? i am curious if this is really true?

 

[tort]

tort, why don’t you tell me more about Pope John XII and the accusations you made? i am curious if this is really true?

See posting 138.

 

[anon52328184]

oh, okay, i guessed i missed that post. looks like there was about 700 years of bad popes.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

It’s not me; it’s you. You’re deliberately trying to make it look like I didn’t know what Papal Infallibility meant by taking my words out of context. I was responding to your remarks where you already defined it in your own way to me:

Sir,

I have to say that I am rendered nearly speechless by the obstinate blindness you’re displaying here. “It’s not me, it’s you”? Hmm. As others have noted, I responded to exactly what you said and exactly what you meant. You very clearly do not know what Papal Infallibility means! Or, if you do, you are engaging in the most egregious non-sequiturs imaginable in trying to discredit it.

I said this once before, very clearly, and it was repeated for you, but here it is again:

The doctrine states that a Pope will not be in error when speaking ex cathedra. It does not say anything about what sins he will or will not commit nor how often he will commit them. It says nothing whatever about his personal behavior at all. Therefore, to make the “argument” that papal infallibility does not exist because there were popes who behaved badly makes not a wit of sense.

You wrote, in part:
“The Church teaches - infallibly - that the Magisterium is prevented from teaching moral or spiritual error by the protection of the Holy Spirit, as originating with Christ’s promise to Peter. You’re clearly denying that - or am I mistaken?”

I responded, in part: “I do not believe there is or ever has been popular support among bishops for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, particularly given that there were quite many popes who engaged in the most immoral behavior along with sacrilege.”

In other words, I don’t believe there is much support for this belief because it’s difficult to accept the idea that a pope like Pope John XII, who toasted to Satan, attempted to conjure demons, possibly raped his own mother, and deliberately changed things during mass, would be at the same time be protected by the holy spirit in teachings of faith and morals!

What ex cathedra pronouncements of John XII do you believe in error? IF you made such an argument, you’d AT LEAST be arguing to the issue.

You also do not understand what the Catholic Church is, how She defines doctrine and dogma, and how heresy is defined. You are arguing that because some theologian has at some time denied some doctrine or dogma, it is legitimate to deny said doctrine or dogma. This is how the Church works: a member who denies any doctrine or dogma, especially formally and persistently, is a heretic. You have at this point removed yourself from the Body of Christ.

The doctrine of papal infallibility as defined by the Church is required to be believed by the faithful, and all faithful, honest Catholics do believe it, and for very good reasons as well.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

No, that’s your opinion based on one interpretation. Various very prominent theologians in and out of the Church don’t necessarily agree that the doctrine has existed from the beginning, even in consideration of scripture:

Whoa. Prominent theologian outside of the Church have questioned this doctrine? Why didn’t you say that before? Holy cow - I’ve been looking at this all wrong. Do you know what else they might disagree with? Now I’m not at all sure what’s true and what’s not!

See my previous post - you don’t understand how the Church works and how faithful Catholics think. In short, we don’t give a rat’s *** what heretical theologian think or publish. Every single Catholic doctrine and dogma is denied by some ‘theologian’, but it doesn’t make any of them less true.

For example, hisotrian Brian Tierney, author of “Origins of Papal Infallibility” writes in his book “There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it”. (taken from wikipedia page).

Also see, “The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility: A Study In The Background Of Vatican”, by Richard Costigan, Catholic scholar. Hint from the book: There is no consenus among Catholic Theologans.

For historical reasons, also see: s8int.com/strossmayer.html

Aside from what’s listed at that site, there’s a long list of others.

I already gave you evidence from the early Church. There’s lots more where that came from. So, your heretical theologians with an agenda are just that.

I’m not here to debate the doctrine because it is already established by the Church, and that is enough for any faithful Catholic. But, the evidence is, in fact, overwhelming that this doctrine existed in some form from the beginning of the Church.

Have you read Jergens’ Faith of Our Fathers? Have you read the early Fathers at all?

Of course, this brings up the idea based on Vatican II official comments that the entire doctrine only applies in very narrow circumstances, and that most people have misunderstood, and therefore the criticisms don’t apply. Odd how it became so limited in scope after laundry lists of apparent applicable contradictory statements/order from popes were published contradicting the doctrine from Vatican I.

Such as what?

There aren’t any.

And, anyway, up this point at least you’ve been so confused you’ve been talking about nothing but non-ex-cathedra papal behavior.

 

[anon52328184]

when did the doctrine of papal infallibility begin?

someone said the end of the 19th century, but i thought it was way before that.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

oh, okay, i guessed i missed that post. looks like there was about 700 years of bad popes.

There were, Deborah, or close at least, but none of them ever taught error. Most of them never taught anything about faith or morals at all.

(But when they did, they were still inspired by the Spirit to say what was true; just as with the Pharisees, ‘Do as they say, not as they do.’)

 

[redrosetea]

Every religion has its Jimmy Swaggerts…We got them because the pope was being picked by queens and kings and not cardinals …They thought if they controlled the papacy they could control the world