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.

ou may not be aware of the following arguments regarding the binding teaching authority of the Church. Many anti-Catholics simply pass over these facts. "If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus How do you interpret this passage? Does this mean that Christ's Church has no disciplinary authority? Or does you mean that Christ's Church has no doctrinal authority?

Once again you are simply reiterating RC polemics which were examinedand still await a response from you.

Does this mean that Christ's Church has no disciplinary authority? The answers to your specific question here is that this text affirms that Christ's Church has disciplinary authority, which flows from the OT.

However, the question asked before im regards to this remains, Why does this authority necessitate perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, whenever it speaks according to Rome's formula, which excludes the possibility of valid dissent from it?

So this goes unanswered, I will provide the answer, which is that it does not, as Scripture manifestly teaches that ensured magisterial infallibility is not necessary for authority, or discernment of Truth or preservation of faith.

And in fact, the church actually began contrary to the Roman basis for discernment of Truth, with common souls having recognized both men and writings of God as being so, essentially in the light of their unique enduring Heavenly qualities and attestation.

And follow itinerant preachers who established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium, which you have invoked for support of Rome's.

Or does you mean that Christ's Church has no doctrinal authority?

Actually, Mt. 18:15-18 refers to judicial judgments on personal disputes, while the spiritual power extends to all believers, as also in Ja. 5. But in principal it affirms magisterial judgment, and Westminster states,

"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

Thus once again the issue remains that is not magisterial authority that is at issue, but perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is not promised or provided, but which Rome reads into Scripture based upon fallacious premises and presuppositions.

St. Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."

And thus as asked before of you when you posted this polemical proof text, the question remains, "So where is this text infallibly interpreted to mean Rome possesses perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility? Or even as requiring assent as meaning what you invoke it for?"

And in any case, "how does 8 words in Greek, (church living God pillar and ground the truth), one of which only occurs here, with both pillar and ground denoting support, translate into the church being the supreme infallible authority on Truth?"

This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice

Indeed, but since the NT church began in dissent from them, then how does this support the ensured magisterial infallibility of Rome, which excludes valid dissent, rather than upholding the principle of the magisterial authority?

If you want to argue for the latter, i will concur, even towards a centralized one as the ideal, but that simply does not support the elitist cultic claims of the church RCs seem bound to defend at any cost to credulity.

n this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders,

You failed to the source of this proffered polemic, which as SR points out used the discredited Pseudo-Clementine Writings yet this also only affirms the validity of the magisterial office, and also affirms the validity of dissent from it by itinerant preachers based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. .

Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

Wrong, and which is simply to much RC propaganda. The judgment of the OT magisterium was binding, disobedience even being a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) and to not absolve a person in his case was to leave him guilty. There is nothing radically new here, or anything requiring ensured infallibility for authority, any more than there was before.

And the manifest example of binding and loosing in the NT reveals that its spiritual aspect of binding/loosing souls extends to all righteous believers, such as offer fervent prayer like Elijah, who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years and loosed them again. (Ja. 5:16-18) Even though such prophets were persecuted by those in power whom they reproved, as has been the case in the history of the church of Rome.

The binding and loosing was also that of Peter indicting two liars to the church, unto death, (Acts 5) and Paul, together with the church delivering an impenitent incestuous man over to the devil for chastisement, (1Cor. 5) as well as personally doing so to two heretics. (1Tim. 1:10)

Meanwhile, the text RCs invoke for support of their practice of forgiving sins is supposed to be promising healing, (Ja,. 5:14,15) while instead it is usually a precursor of death.

In reality, Rome has basically bound multitudes from personally reading Scripture for centuries (while many of her note mislead them to this day), and loosed the unholy sword of men upon those who did or enabled it, among others tortured and or murdered simply for theological deviations. Which early Prots had to unlearn.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." --Jesus

In-credible. Unless you simply want to support the authority of the magisterial office, which was never an ensured infallible one, then by invoking this to support submission to Rome's infallible magisterium which excludes dissent, then you invalidate the very NT church which began in dissent from it, and asked the very questions you do! (Mk. 11:28-33)

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.

Old image ---New image

2 Timothy 2:14