Are you infallible?

It’s a question that requires little thought to answer; are you infallible? It ranks right up there with, “Are you God?” But to Catholic apologists the question is quite serious; that’s because they believe that there is a man on earth who, on the subject of faith and morals, is infallible; they call him, “holy father.” See, it does rank right up there with, “Are you God,” at least when coming from people who think their leader is equal with God on deciding issues of faith and morals.

According to Catholic apologist, John Martignoni, this question should cause Protestants to suddenly doubt everything they believe, and Catholics should take comfort in knowing they and only they, have an infallible leader here on earth. But how can they know? Is there one Catholic person out there, besides the pope of course, who will confess to being infallible? And if a Catholic is not infallible, how can he or she “know” their pope is infallible? They can’t! So if they cannot infallibly declare their pope to be infallible, then their assertion is nothing more than a fallible opinion. And if they are wrong, which my fallible counter-assertion says they are, then they are being deceived.

The logic that so often accompanies claims of papal infallibility goes something like this: “Jesus did not leave His people vulnerable to the doctrinal whims of competing leaders.”

The logic used is quite revealing; it indicates very strongly that those who use it have no idea what it means to have the gift of the Holy Spirit, because if they had the gift of the Holy Spirit they would not be looking to Rome for infallible direction. It also reveals that they think everyone else is like them, wanting to follow the whims of their leaders. It also denies the notion that Christ has relationship with man through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Their magisterium reserves that privilege for themselves and people buy into it. It’s no different than Mormons following their prophet in Utah.

The pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, but the Apostle Paul explicitly said that Christ is the head of His Church and He reconciles all things to Himself. To wit, Catholics will be quick to agree that Christ is the head, but then immediately contradict themselves by saying, “but He established the papacy through which He reveals His truths .” Based on what? If Christ is the head and we are the body, where does the papacy fit in? I see no evidence of this claim in Scripture or history, so if the evidence is not there the papacy must belong to a different body; one that is not associated with Christ and His church.

In his newsletter on his website where he shares chapter one of his new book, “Blue Collar Apologetics,” John Martignoni instructs his faithful followers to establish the fact that Protestants are not infallible early on in discussions with them. The purpose of doing this is to attempt to convince the Protestant that he could be wrong about what he believes. The funny thing is Martignoni never tells his readers what to do if the Protestant turns the question back on them; and that is most certainly what is likely to happen.

Does Martignoni really not see this coming, or is he simply at a loss for how to address it? Once a Catholic apologist is faced with admitting their own fallibility, they will immediately be forced to deal with the realization that their claim of papal infallibility is itself a fallible opinion; so they must, therefore, admit that they could be wrong as well. And once they realize the playing field is level, the evidence will do the talking.

A Catholic apologist who is willing to concede that his belief regarding papal infallibility is nothing more than a fallible opinion will likely ask another similar question, “What church do you belong to and how old is it?” In their minds this is the true “gotcha” question. They believe, in their fallible opinions of course, that they belong to the church founded by Christ nearly 2000 years ago. But the fact is, and yes it is a fact, there was no Roman Catholic Church 2000 years ago; it took a few hundred years for that to develop. Furthermore, by their own admission, the doctrines they hold equal in authority to the Bible, which they call “sacred traditions,” did not exist at the time of the apostles; that also is a fact.

There is something, however, that is clearly older than any Protestant or Roman Catholic Church and that is the written books of the Bible. If a person bases his or her faith on these written works then no supposed authority that came later can undermine the power of God working through them. It is unfortunate that when a person comes to Christ in faith through reading the Bible, that there are so-called Christians who come along to cast doubt in their minds. For example, in a tract on the Catholic Answers website called, “By What Authority,” it is stated, “In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers.”

Not according to the Apostle John who explicitly wrote, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name”? He did not say these are written because you believe; he said, these are written that you may believe. John’s gospel is a firsthand written testimony of the ministry of Jesus for the purpose of bringing people to Him, and Catholic apologists are telling us it was never John’s intention for us to become believers by reading it? Amazing; isn’t it? The Catholic Answers philosophy seems to be to make up facts rather than face them.

So for the sake of the next John Martignoni disciple who wants to ask me if I am infallible, the answer is no; and incidentally your answer to my identical question is also no. Thus I am not interested in your fallible opinion that your pope is infallible when speaking on faith and morals. Perhaps one of you can go tell Mr. Martignoni that chapter his one is incomplete, and that he might want to consider adding a realistic response to his question rather than a bunch of scenarios where the Protestant is simply dumbfounded. His current scenarios might have been fun for him to write, but they are only going to embarrass his readers when they go out armed with the Martignoni sword.

... we have a difference of view as to whether the works are "substantially productive" in the process of justification, vs. whether they're simply a "handy and good after-effect of something already done". I believe the former, and you seem (as per your commentary) to believe the latter.

OK, I'm back to having trouble parsing what exactly you are saying, but I'll give it my best shot. First, I will attempt to paraphrase what you are saying. If I get the paraphrase wrong, please feel free to correct me. In your view, justification is a process and not an identifiable judicial event. As such, good works make an essential contribution to the completion of the justifying process. This view also rejects the idea that Paul and James might have been using dikaioo (justify) in any sense but this same processive sense.

Furthermore, your view of my view apparently is that I see works as "simply" (i.e., nothing more than) a useful and good consequence of some unnamed prior event.

There's a lot to respond to there:

1) The Nature of Justification:

In Paul, especially Romans, justification does not appear to be a process, but a judicial event. Paul uses Abraham as the model of the occurrence, and in that faith event in Abraham's life, it is said that God counted his faith as righteousness. The word for "counted" is λογίζομαι ("logizomai"). The Louw-Nida entry on that is this:

57.227 λογίζομαιd: to keep records of commercial accounts, involving both debits and credits—‘to put into one’s account, to charge one’s account, to regard as an account.’ τῷ δὲ ἐργαζομένῳ ὁ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ χάριν ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα ‘to a person who has worked, the wage is not regarded (or ‘not credited to his account’) as a gift but as a debt to be paid’ (or ‘a debt owed to him’) Ro 4:4.

Remember that Paul is systematically building a case for grace. It would be inconsistent with that objective for him to sneak in a quid pro quo through the back door. This is his whole point in raising the Abrahamic faith event. His purpose is to cast justification as this settling of the books, without works, which purpose "counted" ("logizomai") is well suited to accomplish, and which is the dead opposite of some ongoing, quid pro quo process.

To further reinforce this, the tense of "logizomai" is aorist, which is not simply past time, but in Greek carries the sense of punctilliar time, i.e., a single, definite point in time, an event, not a process. The accounting event that rendered Abraham righteous in God's eyes was that moment of faith.

2) The Protestant View of Works:

As for my view of works, I fear you are using some sort of Protestant stereotype popular among Catholics rather than representing my own view of the matter. The struggle of any soul who truly loves God with all their heart, mind, soul, and body is to use all at their disposal to give Him all glory, to win souls to love Him and love each other. The greatest, deepest hurts of individuals and nations rest in this question of love. That is the drive behind the true believer's impulse to do good, and that love is what defines the good to do.

Consider the following:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
(Ephesians 2:8-10)

Works are not some trivial after-effect to faith. They are the miracle salvation is designed to produce, the miracle of the newly created man, the heart turned from stone to flesh, the one dead in sin raised to new life in Christ, all to the eternal praise of God Almighty.

So no, they are not "nothing more than an after-effect." They are life and liberty and joy in the Holy Spirit. We are as unworthy of experiencing them as we are of being acquitted of our sins. But God in His grace has seen to it that we will not only be forgiven, but will also find our way into that path of heart-obedience to Him, which brings so much good and healing to us. It's all part of the plan.

I do not at all deny that good works will ALSO result from faith; but there's nothing in Scripture which insists that it comes ONLY from one who is justified,

Again, I am having trouble tracking your meaning. If I understand you correctly, I cannot agree with your statement. What does the Scripture say:

And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
(Romans 14:23)

According to Paul, faith justifies a man apart from works. So we know the man of faith is justified, and I think we can agree that this justified man can do good works. But conversely, if a man is NOT justified, it is precisely because he lacks faith, and if he lacks faith, nothing he does can please God:

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(Hebrews 11:6)

nor does anything in Scripture require that we view the good works as having only an after-the-fact "indicator" role with justification.

But this is a straw man, depending on how you meant it. As explained above, Paul makes it clear that works do not have a causal role in our forensic justification. But they have a supremely important role in fulfilling our purpose as redeemed children of God. There is no reason to see that as something trivial.

My view allows me to read James 2:24 and not try to explain away the plain language which says "a man is justified by works";

When the same word can have more than one meaning, as I demonstrated is the case with dikaioo (justify), it is just doing due diligence to make sure we look at the difference between the way Paul uses the term versus James. Remember what Peter said about Paul's teaching:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(2 Peter 3:16)

If Peter recognizes the need to engage Paul's teaching with seriousness of mind, then it seems right to take Peter at his word and don't get sloppy in trying to understand Paul. Errors can come from making something too complex, but also too simple. Like Einstein once said, we should make the problem as simple as possible, but no simpler.

In this case, the difference in the use of "justification" between Paul and James is real, and to overlook it is to discard a portion of God's message to us. I am not willing to do that, so if it takes a little more work to get it right, then so be it.

3) The Both/And Theory:

I can allow that, while at the same time allowing the perfectly reasonable idea that the justified man will ALSO manifest good works by virtue of his justification! It's not "either/or"; it's "both/and". (You may have heard, in some circles, that this is a key difference between Protestants and Catholics: Protestants insist on "either/or" in many places where Catholics see the possibility of both/and. For example: the Holy Eucharist IS a "symbol"... but it's ALSO a REALITY; nowhere are we required to believe that a symbol must be a "mere" symbol, and nothing more!)

I am familiar with the endemic dodge of "both/and." We see it in politics all the time: "I'm for the best aspects of Common Core, while at the same time against the worst aspects of it. Pay no attention to the fact that the worst aspects and the best aspects are the same aspects." Both/and works real well with Zen too: "I am a tree and a cow and one hand clapping in the forest. Bla bla bla."

Don't take this personally, BTW. I just get tired of what looks to me like a systematized way of trying to bury real contradictions/contrasts. I believe in the ordinary, propositional approach to extracting truth from language. If a text is using the same word in two or three different ways, we have to account for that. We can't just sweep it under the rug by saying, in effect, the contradiction doesn't matter, aka "both/and."

Not to say "both/and" can never be true. It's like a Venn diagram. Some parts of the circles overlap, and some don't. But you'll never get anywhere by saying a circle and a square are both different and the same in the same way at the same time. That's just irrational nonsense.

Take the Lord's Supper for example. Because both Scripture and some of the patristic writers clearly take John 6 as metaphor (famously Augustine, in his "figure detection" passage), the Catholic apologist can't deny that motif and remain the least bit credible. The brilliant solution is to set the law of non-contradiction aside and go all Zen, that a symbol is both a representation of something else AND the something else it represents at the same time.

Let's think about this. Remember the expression, trying to have your cake and eat it too? That's a "both/and." But why do we intuitively know it's nonsense? Because we can easily see that if we eat the cake, it is no longer on our plate. There are many, many things that operate under the rule of binary alternatives. It's not a Protestant/Catholic thing. It's a case by case basis:

On the one hand, we serve God, or we don't, a critical pair of binary alternatives I am sure we would both recognize:

"Ye cannot serve two masters"

On the other hand, Jesus is many things, all at one time:

I am the Door
I am the Vine
I am the Bread of Life

Etcetera.

So you see the problem. Dumping this off as a Protestant/Catholic thing does nothing to provide insight about either the relationship between symbols and the things they represent, or the multiple uses of the term "justification." The "justification" problem is relatively easy. There is a linguistic reality out there and if one wants to know what Paul, James and Moses were saying, one has to do the necessary lexical, semantic, and contextual homework to find out, and not just wave it off with the magic wand of "both/and," which assuredly will produce irrational results.

The question about symbols versus things is a little more difficult, because we would have to wade into rather deep philosophical waters and related linguistics to get an answer. The 50 cent version is that Platonic notions of "symbol" are not set in such sharp contrast to the thing they represent as the modern term "symbol" might suggest (although neither do they support the medieval alchemy of transubstantiation). But Platonism and its later derivative Neoplatonism were corrupting influences on early Christianity and were in conflict with the Hebraic concretism in which the Lord's Supper was first instituted. In that environment, a "figure" behaved more like the modern usage of symbol, distinct from the thing it represents, i.e., a metaphor.

Which of course is part of why we find so much metaphorical language in Scripture, while Scripture simultaneously denies and condemns the use of material objects as any kind of quasi-magical connection with the unseen world, amulets, talismans, idols, etc. In that context it would be impossible to imagine any sort of "both/and" approach that involved localizing the physical and spiritual substance of Christ in a physical food item. Much more natural and appropriate to see the many metaphors of Scripture for what they are, vivid mental imagery pointing to vital spiritual truth, as we have in John 6 and elsewhere.

Peace,

SR

Nope no priests in the NT Pal... The MODERN DICTIONARIES have adapted Rome’s definition.. but to really know you have to look at what THE HOLY SPIRIT said in Greek..

:) Oh, my word...

So... am I to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired a particular Greek dictionary? I'm apparently also supposed to believe that modern dictionary companies have been taken over and/or brainwashed by Catholics (I think back fondly of that staunch Papist, Noah Webster! *dreamy sigh*)... and that they're willing to subjugate "true meaning" of words for the sake of promoting a "Romish" agenda. I'm... quite speechless. (I'm trying very hard not to laugh, honest. :) )

You NEED A GREEK DICTIONARY

(*activating bullhorn*)

I HAVE A GREEK DICTIONARY. THANK YOU!

:)

I'm really not sure why this is so much fun... but this particular exchange is really tickling my funny bone... :)

The greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest..

Correction: the word for "old Covenant priest" (hiereus) is different from the word for "new Covenant priest" (presbyteros), and the word for "new Testament priest" is the same as the word for "elder/presider". This really has been true for quite a number of centuries.

The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture..

Of course.

The greek have a couple words for priest

At least three, actually.

Neither role is given in scripture for the new church.

...and again, you insist on the unbiblical idea of "sola Scriptura", and you abstract completely from all of Church history from Apostolic times, until today. I'm not sure why, aside from probable polemical reasons (e.g. "anything but Rome!!").

Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin

Right... just as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have taught for hundreds of years before Luther was born.

Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words..

I'm quite sure He does. He also knows Church history, as well. :)

there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.

Nonsense. Scripture records the ordinations of bishops, priests, and deacons, by the laying on of hands by one of the Apostles and/or their successors/delegates. This has been true for 2000 years... and Protestant redaction of history will not alter that fact.

I will say this much: in the earliest days of the Church, the number of priests (i.e. ordained delegates of the bishops) was relatively small, since the congregations were usually small enough to be handled by the bishop, directly. Nowadays, when--for example--New York City has a Catholic population of almost 3,000,000, it's not feasible for one bishop to minister to the needs of so many, and numerous priests are needed.

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007).

(*wry look*) How novel and authoritative!

Do me a favor: on the page with the copyright, does the book have an "imprimatur" and a "nihil obstat"? Granted, an imprimatur and/or a "nihil obstat" is only as good as the bishop who issues it... but the type of author who neglects to get one (and all books dealing with Catholic theology are required to have these, by Canon Law) can safely be written off as not being reliable.

On page 166 he states, “Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.”

Given that the Catechism flatly contradicts him, (see especially the bit about "...entrusted by Christ...") I'll go with the Catholic Church, on this one. That seems to be a difficulty that some Protestants have with understanding the Church: they're so used to "winging it on their own" and "following one pastor or another, based only on personal opinion and taste, with no way to settle 'who's right and who's wrong' in any disagreement", that they have a hard time wrapping their brains around the idea of "checking with the highest authority". Believe me, there are plenty of lay people (and priests, and even bishops) who write books/articles, etc., which claim to be "Catholic", but which are nuttier than Nutella (and not nearly so good for you); thank God, there's an authority against which we can use to check the claims of this-or-that "author".

[other non-authoritative opinions from Mr. Dues deleted for space]

(*headdesk*)

Lord Jesus, give me strength...

I really don't like calling anyone "completely clueless"--but anyone who says that the quote from Trent is "forbidding the purchase and reading of a Bible" is... just clueless.

This decree of Pope Pius IV was in regard to PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS of the Bible... not all vernacular translations, willy-nilly (those were available through permission of the bishop, who gave such permission willingly for translations which were trustworthy, and not corrupted by errors from Luther, et al.).

Why is it that some Protestants can cry out for people to "remember context!" in terms of the Scriptures (I'll leave the idea of whether or not they usually follow their own advice aside, for the moment), but they throw all caution to the winds when they see what seems to be a juicy "anti-Catholic tid-bit"?

Ohhh it is still in force.. Trent was an INFALLIBLE council that EVERY POPE MUST AFFIRM ...so Francis had to agree with every word of Trent.. including that

Strike two, FRiend. "Infallible" only applies to TEACHING (i.e. dogma); any sensible person knows that. POLICIES (what the Church calls "disciplines") can change at need, and they HAVE changed at need. Case in point, with this decree; it's a POLICY (the word "rule" should have given a hint)--and a very wise one, given the chaos stirred by heretical translations of the Scriptures... but it's no loner in force, as such.

This old canard of "the Catholic Church kept the Bible from people" is one of the most laughable, one of the least logical, and one of the most patently polemic-based accusations that anti-Catholic-Church people have ever concocted. Just for a sample:

If the Church were so eager to "hide the Scriptures from the people", then why did the Church:

1) translate it into the vernacular at all (including the Latin Vulgate, which was the vernacular in St. Jerome's time; he received a great deal of flak for translating it from the "hallowed Greek and Hebrew")? I've yet to hear any cogent Protestant explanation for the hundreds of Pre-Lutherian-rebellion vernacular translations, BTW... including St. Cyril, who invented an entirely new alphabet, for the sole purpose of teaching and printing and disseminating the Bible (and Mass texts based on the Bible), all done with the explicit blessing of Popes St. Nicholas I and Adrian II.

2) preserve the Scriptures at all? How better to start a "false religion" around oneself than to destroy all incriminating evidence, and write one's own "holy book" from scratch? Why did that not happen?

3) read the Scriptures at every Mass, and weave Scripture into virtually every prayer ever uttered by Catholic clergy? The practice of reading the Scriptures to the illiterate masses (and interpreting it for them) seems a rather silly way to keep it from them.

4) bother with disseminating the Bible at ALL--especially in the supposed "dark ages", when Protestants claim the Catholic Church was all-powerful? If the Church is truly a "man-made" religion which "rules with an iron fist by sheer weight of authority", then who would have been able to STOP such a "dominant, man-made Church" from destroying all but one copy of the Scriptures, and locking it in a highly-guarded museum, much like the Mona Lisa? (The supposed "money-grubbing Church" could even have charged admission, and made a handy income, from the faithful pilgrims who came to venerate the "Holy Book" from behind the spectator railings...)

Sheesh...

>>>>>>>>>Correction: the word for “old Covenant priest” (hiereus) is different from the word for “new Covenant priest” (presbyteros), and the word for “new Testament priest” is the same as the word for “elder/presider”. This really has been true for quite a number of centuries.<<<<<<<<<<<

LOL are we supposed to buy this ...

Greek is greek ...

The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

NOT ONE MENTION OF MAKING SACRIFICES ..the role of the priest..

Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.

There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..

Were you aware that the early church called your priests “clerks” ...from which we get the word clergy??

The Jewish priesthood was a type of Christ .. fulfilled at the cross... God then DESTROYED the type in 70 AD

The Old Testament sacrifices pointed to Christ,, The jewish priests that offered the sacrifices pointed to Christ..

He was both Priest and sacrifice ...He offered Himself as the sacrifice ..

The cross put an end to the need for sacrifices..and the need of of one to offer them .

The Romanist “sacrifice” of the mass is an abomination to God

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.