Posted on 04/28/2015 8:36:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
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.
This is all word games... Greek is Greek.. trying to redefine the words by modern standards or usage is doing great damage to the work of the Holy Spirit ...
Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.Peace,
(Psalms 46:10-11)
Huummmm
This time, the Protestants were openly questioning all the dogmas of the Faith. The Council of Trent had to address itself to the entirety of Catholic dogma. And the Council Fathers did so with such holy thoroughness that their dogmatic decrees were infallibly declared by Pope Pius IV, and promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V. It is for this reason the Council of Trent is universally regarded as the greatest of the general councils of the Church and is often referred to as “the infallible Council of Trent.”http://catholicism.org/catechism-council-trent.html
Can you supply us with documents that this "Rule" was officially changed by Rome ??
Amen .... So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.(Isa 55:11)
Isn’t he great? I enjoy his posts so much and I have learned a lot from him. He is one of the best posters on these threads. I know I will read the truth from him.
“Galatians could have been written to the Catholic church.”
Had it been in existence when Galatians was written, it would likely have been!
-— 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. -—
To deny that is more proof of the dangers of Luther’s tradition of Sola Scriptura.
Condemning tradition.
How hypocritical of a Catholic.
AMEN, Mark17! It HAS to be OSAS, otherwise we would be involved in our salvation. There is just no other way to put it, either Christ did it ALL, or what He DID do wasn’t enough. I thank God for the finished work of Christ!
I know you spend so much time trying to fit Catholic beliefs into scripture but it doesn’t work. The dictionary surely isn’t a source you wish to use. Gay now means a homosexual according to the current dictionary. That would have made everybody in the 1920s a homosexual. Retrofitting is what the Catholic Church does but it’s not New Testament Christianity. And the pathetic attempt at explaining the benefits of being single from Paul’s letters may make you feel better but it’s still not what he said was REQUIRED for elders and bishops. There are REQUIRED to be married with children they have raised.
Could we please have the scripture references were "bishops" were ordained ??
One more time...get a greek dictionary...Rome does not get to redefine words
the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.
The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .
The greek have a couple words for priest
hiereus
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ
and archiereus
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.
Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..
Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin
He is now our High Priest..
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
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..
Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). 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.”
“A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, ‘overseer’). In English this came to be translated as ‘bishop’ (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community’s Eucharistic assembly.”
“When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist.”
Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.
RN, LOL, stop telling the truth. 😱 We can't have the truth here. It might upset the apple cart. 😂 I know when I was a catholic, I ENJOYED sinning. I lived for it, because I went to confess to a priest every Saturday, then I went out and lived like Hell. I thought it was a wonderful thing. I could sin till the cows came home, and then go to the priest. Heck of a deal. After awhile, even that didn't work out. We continue the war against the old nature. Keep up the good work. 😇
The world has so many Jesus's ..There is the Mormon jesus , the JW jesus and so on ...
Suddenly I was aware of the supreme Holiness of God.. I can not explain how ...But when that happened I realized how filthy with sin I was and fell to my knees and wept. I was so filthy I needed some one to save me from it...and THATS WHO JESUS WAS...
I loved my church, born ,raised and educated . I was active with ministries, So at first I did not fully understand what conversion meant.. I knew i was hungry for the word of God, and to pray and to sing praises ... but that did not seem at odds with my church .I hung onto the church ... but very slowly I started to see conflict in what Rome teaches and what my bible told me.. Then one day a couple years later I had to ask myself why I kept coming to the church .. by this point I believed basically none of her doctrine ...
Leaving was painful for me.. my friends were friends no more.. my "ministries " were gone.. But I could no longer sit under a false religious system. I have to follow Christ ...
You are correct DB88. Three cheers for the wonderful Christian ladies among us, who ALWAYS tell the truth. Keep us the good work ladies.
We do have this.
Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation. Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and of the Church and showed it by saying people could read and interpret the Bible for themselves. Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.
Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so. And with Catholics studying Scripture and teaching other Catholics about what they were studying, familiarity with Scripture grew.
Scripture awareness grew after the Second Vatican Council. Mass was celebrated in the vernacular and so the Scripture readings at Mass were read entirely in English. Adult faith formation programs began to develop, and the most common program run at a parish focused on Scripture study. The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. All of this contributed to Catholics becoming more familiar with the Bible and more interested in reading the Scriptures and praying with them.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/understanding-the-bible/study-materials/articles/changes-in-catholic-attitudes-toward-bible-readings.cfm
For those who say the masses couldn't read the Latin back in the day have you ever considered this:
Why didn't they try to teach them to read????
I think we know why.
You are correct sir. I was baptized in the GI swimming pool at Bien Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam. I thought it was a strange place for that to happen, but it was hot that day, so I was more than willing to do it. 😂 The point is, however, that I was saved 6 months before that.
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.