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.
All Catholics know, I know, and you know, that it doesn't work that way....never has.
LOL, there you go again. It doesn't work that way huh? Maybe you should tell that to all the Catholics in my catholic high school. My catholic high school, had a terrible reputation, and most of them were worse sinners than I was, and I was bad enough. Apparently, they didn't know you. You would have spoiled their fun, and I am pretty sure they would rather continue to enjoy their sinful ways. By all means, keep thinking the way you want. That's on you. See you at the pearly gates. Me and St Pete are on a first name basis. 😆
You are correct Eagle dude. 😂 I was too young to know if my parents had me sprinkled when I was a baby, but they never asked for my opinion, in which case, I would have objected to it. 😎 I am thinking maybe we should start a club here, called ex Catholics for Christ. I think it would be a beautiful thing. Everyone else could pray, while me and Elsie could do what we do best, dream up Limericks. 😆 We got a million of them. Do you think it has a future? 🇵🇭
But Catholics are still free to use Scripture that contain Catholic errors?
Or rather they are now not limited to using only Scripture that contain Catholic errors?
Sorry, it's morning.....
STA:What authority do you have to make this claim?
Nobody NEEDS *authority* to make that kind of claim. All they need is simply powers of observation.
By what authority do YOU make any of the claims you make? Did someone give it to you or are you acting on your own?
Catholics appeal to authority constantly as if that validates anything they say, but one does not need authority to read Scripture, nor to understand it, nor to obey it.
No one needs authority to tell them how to live and what to do. Believers are led by the Holy Spirit and enlightened by Him.
And being enlightened by the Holy Spirit does NOT mean agreeing lockstep with every word that Catholicism pronounces, nor obeying every rule, regulation, decree, etc that it passes, many of which are contradictory.
This business of claiming that authority is needed for anything and everything, is a false idea. It's clearly an attempt by Catholicism and Catholics to control people's behavior.
You told me that all Protestants (based on their possession of Bibles and Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura) agree on a handful of doctrines. This isn't one of the doctrines on your list, IIRC.
It's a Protestant doctrine that all Protestants agree on a handful of doctrines? I'd like to see the link to the quote where ANYONE EVER said that.
Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible?
No one's *interpretation* of Scripture NEEDS to be "infallible."
Tell me, who is going to interpret the Catholic interpretation of Scripture that the unwashed masses are too ignorant to understand? Surely if people can't correctly interpret Scripture, they are incapable of correctly interpreting anything else. There must be an interpretation of the interpretation floating around somewhere.
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus
How do you interpret this passage?
Certainly NOT that Jesus is commanding everyone to be in submission to Catholicism nor that it is giving the Catholic church ultimate power over all people.
You've been corrected many times on that cherry picked misquote of Scripture.
In that discourse, Jesus is giving instructions on how to deal with disputes between believers. He is laying out the pattern of reconciliation that is to take place and how to do it, which ironically, the Catholic church does not itself follow.
It simply hijacks the verse to try to give to itself blanket authority over all others.
Here is the passage in context.
That verse taken out of context by you AGAIN, has been corrected many times and since it appears that it has not yet sunk in, I will post the verse IN CONTEXT again.....
This passage is not a blanket order to obey the leadership of any church which claims that it alone is the one true church.
It is at the end of a discourse addressing how to handle disputes in the body.
It lays out very specifically the steps one is to go through in resolving personal conflict within the body.
Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.
And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
NOWHERE does Jesus command us to "listen to the church".
The comment is *IF he does not listen to the church, then......*
That is a gross misinterpretation of the passage to claim or imply that it is a standing order of Jesus to listen to the Catholic church.
The clear meaning is here for everyone to see. It's dealing with disputes among believers, not absolute authority given to *the Church*.
You are beyond disgusting......
What is it with Catholics and their attitude towards sex?????
If you're doing that stuff to earn or keep your salvation, you are doing it for the wrong reason and that makes them useless for the reason Catholics are doing them.
It shows a gross misunderstanding of what works are all about.
Ouch.....
The childishness of that response is noted.
TC....dude....there's isn't a Christian who believes this. I don't know any believer in my circle who has this attitude. In fact it's the opposite. We know we can't do enough on behalf of the Kingdom. Yet at the same time we know any "deed" we do is insufficient for salvation.
As Christians, we are to bear the fruits of the Spirit as noted in Galatians.
We are guided by the Holy Spirit in these matters.
To reverse your logic, is the unsaved person who does "good" things such as feeding the poor, giving money to the derelict, etc.....does that get them into Heaven?
It's the same line of reasoning with baptism.
What is baptism without faith? It is someone getting wet...that's all.
Apart from faith all we do is a waste.
With faith we are being obedient to God and doing those things He wants us to do.
Is our salvation a license to sin? Good grief no!
It’s really not so hard. Christians aren’t saved by their acts; the Holy Spirit calls them to act because they are saved.
In the same manner, He called them to salvation, through no merit of their own.
Seems like they’re in a position where they can’t say they agree, because that would mean admitting we are correct.
And we all know that no non-Catholic is ever right about anything...... /s
< grin >
There once was a fabled old story
With more twists than an articulated lory
They always do pine
Eating cheese with their whine
Not hoping for Heaven, just purgatory
LOL!!!
:)
First: I'm a bit puzzled by the Protestant idea that any given Protestant can pick up their favorite English translation of the Bible--or even the Greek Scriptures (with an imperfect knowledge of the languages/dialects, the traditions, and the idioms of the time, and with uncertainty as to which Greek manuscript to follow... since there are inconsistencies between them)--look up what a contemporary lexicon says is the meaning of a given word in the Koine Greek (most defer to Strong's Concordance, I suspect--and his views were influenced by his Protestant background and by his strict adherence to the KJV), take it as absolutely certain, and then turn around and pronounce the Catholic Church to be wrong, heretical, unbiblical, and the rest of the standard anti-Catholic litany.
Your polemic would be valid if we were not dealing with something so obvious, and as it is you are basically arguing that this is a highly ambiguous issue, and that Protestants cannot be right based despite the evidence they present from scholarly sources, seeing as you have been presented with such.
Note that a RC is not presuming what Rome presumes of her popes, that of possessing a charism of personal infallibility in his conclusions, if not his arguments, but instead the veracity of his truth claims must rest upon the weight of the evidence.
In this case you might as well argue that one must be a tenured Cath language scholar to know how “hiereus” and presbuteros/episkopos are used in the NT, and how the latter came to be given the distinctive title of the former. While it is obvious and well substantiated that this was never the case in the NT, and that this was a later development based upon imposed fallacious functional equivalence.
Ultimately it would seem the RC premise is, as asked of others, that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus valid dissent from such is excluded, and any who knowingly dissent from the latter c. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?
Then, when challenged with the writings of the Church Fathers.... many such people reply with the bizarre rejoinder that, "Oh, well, obviously we can't trust THEM, since they were simply Catholic "shill" who were toeing the party line! And they're probably mostly forgeries, anyway!" Mm-hmm.,
While you are somewhat using extremes, the questions are, Why make writings of so-called "church fathers" determinative of doctrine, or what Scripture means, when Rome herself judges them more than they judge her, and can disagree with them? Are any of them writing wholly inspired Scripture?
Do they actually consistently speak with unanimous consent even as to Peter being the Rock of Mt. 16:18, or the nature of the Real Presence? Just how true is the often claimed "unanimous consent” of the fathers?,
How come you can sanction RCs invoking them when they have been exposed as misrepresenting them?
Do some, as Jerome, demonstrate reading into Scripture what is not there in order to support erroneous belief?
The question goes back to authority, whether Scripture provides for ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, and thus implicit assent to such, so that a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). Or that the veracity of Truth claims rests upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power? Upon what basis did the NT church begin?
Excluding all sources of data which conflict with your preconceived notions really isn't logical... or honest, for that matter.
Indeed, so why do RCs dismiss, as you have, the data that refutes the idea of presbuteros or episkopos denoting a unique sacrificial function, and being distinctively titled "hiereus" in the NT church?
"Catholicism corrupted Christianity, and it did so almost completely by the 400's A.D." Really? And the "gates of Hades will not prevail" against the "pillar and foundation of the truth" bit? Forgive me if I'm skeptical of such claims..
Again, you are using extremes but which do not exclude the validity of more moderate claims, and are engaging in a false dilemma. For while it is clearly manifest that Rome is the most major substantial and critical deformation of the NT church , the only one true church is the body of Christ, since that alone 100% consists of true believers, while the visible church consists of both wheat and tares who express their faith.
Meanwhile, Scripture, history and tradition only mean what Rome says they do in any conflict, and thus your argument is not on the basis of evidence, but what Rome says.
So... Protestants on this board: do you agree with the young modalist's conclusions? If not, WHY not? I ask, because a good many arguments against Catholic teaching are sounding AWFULLY SIMILAR to that sort of reasoning,
Arguments against false leaders can also sound basically similar to what describes sound ones, as it is the details that differ. And the reason that evangelicals have historically been manifest as unified in core truths and contending against those who deny them, including Sabellianism, is because these enjoy strong Scriptural support. Likewise they contend against Cath traditions such as praying to created beings in Heaven since they fail of such.
Re: the definitions of "presbyteros" and "hiereus":...the word "presbyteros" is used almost exclusively (with the caveat that bishops are, in fact, priests, in the Catholic understanding--so technically, "episkopos" can also refer to those who are priests--though not "merely" priests).
Wrong again! "Presbyteros are, in fact, NOT priests except as part of the general priesthood of all believers. As shown , presbyteros/episkopos denote those in the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) and giving them the distinctive title "hiereus" which is ONLY used for sacerdotal Jewish or pagan priests was a latter development, based upon the imposed functional equivalence.
The word "priest" in the Catholic Church was never meant to convey a meaning identical to the word "priest" in OT/Jewish understanding; they have similarities, but they also have striking differences.
Basically wrong, as basically they both uniquely have chief control of the Divine worship, and offer sacrifices for sin as one of their primary ordained functions, which presbyteros are NEVER shown doing. All believers offer sacrifices, while presbyteros are never even shown dispensing bread as their ordained function, let alone transsubstantiating bread and wine to be offered as a sacrifice for sin, and eaten in order to obtain spiritual life. Which is not what Scripture manifests this to mean, while only the metaphorical understanding is consistent with the totality of Scripture. .
and since the word "presbyteros" (which, yes, can also be translated "elder") was always rendered as "sacerdos" [i.e. "priest"] in every Latin Scripture text I can find
If that is all you can find then i wonder what or where you are looking. I read that Jerome translated the Gk. presbuteros as "presbyteros" in the Vulgate, but translated Old Covenant priests as "sacerdos," and this online comparison btwn the Vulgate and the Douay Bible shows that.
The Early Church used the word "presbyteros" to describe "ordained man [i.e. recipient of Holy Orders], delegate/assistant of the bishop"; and since the word "presbyteros" (which, yes, can also be translated "elder") was always rendered as "sacerdos" [i.e. "priest"] in every Latin Scripture text I can find (which date back to at least the 4th centure A.D., and which are much older than Webster's Dictionary, BTW! :) ), both in the OT and the NT. So... is anyone going to say that all these Latin texts are "simply corrupted by Romanism" and/or "obviously wrong"? If so, then how would one PROVE those sweeping claims to be anything other than self-sealing, circular, wishful-thinking nonsense?
How is .anyone going to say that all these Latin texts are "simply corrupted by Romanism?" By allowing (don't you dare!") that such could occur, and researching the matter. As even a Catholic forum provides (http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=744379.0), while presbyteros could not be semantically translated into the English words "senior" or "elder" without losing its meaning, but which meaning senior" or "elder" convey (while the morphologic translation into the old English word preost evolved into 'priest"), the Latin word sacerdos is the semantical equivalent of the Greek word hiereus (priest) but has no semantical equivalent in a number of modern languages, including English. Yet while "sacerdos" has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter,” presbyteros took on the meaning of sacerdos due to imposed functional equivalence, as explained and substantiated.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (Priests) admits "presbyter soon lost its primitive meaning of "ancient" and was applied only to the minister of worship and of the sacrifice (hence our priest)" and "priest took the meaning of "sacerdos."
In Cyprian's [c. 200 – September 14, 258] writings there is no passage where sacerdos must, and not many where it can, be equivalent to presbyter. - Studia Biblica Et Ecclesiastica, Volume 4, p. 258 ,, Oxford University.
In the general idea of primitive times the whole congregation took part in the priestly office: when a particular usage of [iereus] or "sacerdos" first came in , and for several general generation afterwards, it meant the bishop and the bishop only.... "Summus sacerdos" is freely used of bishops by Jerome, though the title was forbidden even to metropolitans by an African canon. But in any case the new extension of "sacerdos" to the Christian presbyter was too closely in harmony with existing tendencies not to take root at once... Pope Innocent [401–417] speaks of presbyters as "secundi sacerdotes": and from this time onward bishop and priest tend more and more to be ranked together as joint possessors of a common "sacerdotium." - The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 1, edited by Henry Melvill Gwatkin, James Pounder Whitney, p. 157
Since the word "presbyter" came to be synonymous with the idea of a priest, it is important to understand at the outset, that the sacerdotal function—including leading prayer, offering of sacrifices, and the conducting of other sacred rituals—was originally described by terms like sacerdos in Latin, iereus in Greek, kohen in Hebrew. When the word "priest" appears in the New Testament, the usual word for it in Greek is iereus, and not presbyteros. Only considerably later, when presbyters took on the role of sacerdos/iereus, did the term presbyter evolve into "priest" as we use the word today. - http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Presbyter
Thus it is clear that presbyteros being given the title used distinctively for priests was a later development, and Cath translations as the Douay accommodated this.
Final note: some Protestants (even on this board) have presented some gross distortions of Catholicism, in efforts to attack it... which really does strike me as the "straw man" phenomenon. Is it too much to ask that opponents learn what the Church ACTUALLY teaches,
Sometimes true, but much typing has been done here educating them on things their church actually does teach, while exposing the typical RC recourse to Prot. strawmen, as well as
And as often before, giving the RCs more rope results in the reproof of their polemics becoming more complete, as has been the case with you here by the grace of God.
So how can be certain that your claim is true?
Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible?
Very good questions, which have been answered, as they not original and also applies to Rome, and which you have basically asked before, but refuse to answer the questions in asked in response to the premise with its presuppositions behind these questions,
So i ask again,
To clarify then, your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
Or at least cannot be a valid minister for God? And are you referring to judicial authority or spiritual authority to bind and loose, preach the word, heal and help souls?
You told me that all Protestants (based on their possession of Bibles and Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura) agree on a handful of doctrines. This isn't one of the doctrines on your list, IIRC.
You mean they must reject magisterial authority, or hold that there can be no valid dissent from magisterial authority? Where do you find either as a historical Prot. teaching?
Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? And how many times does the
This is standard in the catholic faith as we have noted many times before....how else could they possibly see when they view everything thru the fog of catholicism rather than thru and with the mind of Christ.
One thing about catholicism is it's extreme and many tentacles of 'add-on' teachings, traditions and rituals, (accepted and grafted into their religion over centuries), is like cords wrapping themselves around the members. ...Layers upon layers...which over time leave little room to wiggle free from it's bondage. Or to see an further than the web it''s encased in.
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.