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.

Good grief, FRiend... are you seriously saying that, since the Sanhedrin was an organized authority, and the Catholic Church is an organized hierarchy, and the Sanhedrin were wrong, therefore the Catholic Church must be wrong? Wow... "My dog has four legs. My cat has four legs. My dog loves car-rides; therefore, my cat must love car rides." Look up the "fallacy of the undistributed middle", when you have a chance...

No, you have not represented Daniel's logic faithfully. Therefore your claim of an undistributed middle term in his logic doesn't hold up, though your dogs and cats example does show one (exceedingly unlikely) way that fallacy could occur. In case there are some following this who do not know, let's look at what the infamous "undistributed middle" actually means. Consider the following syllogism:

P1: A is related to B
P2: B is related to C
Therefore: A is related to C

B is the middle term. It is properly distributed if and only if it refers to the same thing in both premises, P1 and P2. That is, it only links A to C if B really is exactly the same thing in both places.

The "undistributed middle" fallacy occurs when the B term somehow changes between P1 and P2. Sometimes the change can be an absolute break, such as the dogs and cats example. Or it can be more subtle, where the same word expressing the B term is used in both places but with a difference in meaning in P1 versus P2. So if we could say B in P1 is somehow significantly different from B in P2, then we have an undistributed middle.

But, just as Daniel says, we have mere sophistry if we try to compare paladinan's example with dogs and cats to Daniel's two magisteriums analysis. The terms don't map at all from Daniel's multi-syllogism sequence to the simple dog and cat syllogism

Dogs and Cats:

P1: dog has four legs
P2: cat has four legs
P3: dog loves car rides
Therefore: cat loves car rides

Which we can all agree is ludicrous, but it also has no resemblance to Daniel's sequence, as below:

Two Magisteriums:

Syllogism 1) Assert the following to be true:

P1: An infallible magisterium would not be in conflict with Jesus
P2: Israel's magisterium was in conflict with Jesus
Therefore: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium

Syllogism 1 is formally correct because the middle term, "conflict with Jesus," was distributed correctly, i.e., had the same exact meaning in P1 and P2. And as all the constituent terms are also factually correct, the conclusion of Syllogism 1 must also be true. So we can use it to test further conclusions, thus:

Syllogism 2) Assert the following to be false:

P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God
P2: Israel did not have an infallible magisterium (see A above)
Therefore: It was impossible for Israel to know if Jesus was of God

Obviously, we all reject the conclusion of Syllogism 2. But is Syllogism 2 formally correct? Yes it is. Once again, in Syllogism 2, there is no problem with an undistributed middle. The B term, the one that links P1 and P2, is "infallible magisterium," and it is used the same way in both premises. And because P2 is simply a restatement of the correct conclusion found in Syllogism 1, then the only place remaining in which to find an error is P1 of Syllogism 2, the idea that an infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God.

Put another way, as a result of these first two syllogisms, we now know an infallible magisterium is not necessary to know what is of God. The only question remaining is how this new information plays out in the Catholic Magisterium syllogism:

Syllogism 3) Assert the following to be false, because it uses the same faulty premise as Syllogism 2

P1: An infallible magisterium is necessary to know what is of God
P2: Only Catholicism possesses an infallible magisterium
Therefore: Only Catholicism provides what is necessary to know what is of God

Because we already know the premise in P1 is false, we know the conclusion must be false, i.e., we know there can be means outside of Catholicism by which it is possible to know what is of God (which merits a discussion unto itself). Furthermore, looping back to the first syllogism, we see that the New Testament Ecclesia was birthed in direct conflict with the magisterium. This means that if we were forced for some reason to accept P1 as true, we would have to reject the ministry of Jesus, as it was conducted in opposition to the magisterium. But if, as is the better case, we accept the ministry of Jesus as true, it is impossible to accept P1 as true, and again we know from this that it is possible to know what is of God without the benefit of an infallible magisterium.

BTW, it should be pointed out that P2 in Syllogism 3 above is radically flawed as well. Catholicism's claim to an infallible magisterium is unconvincing:

1. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was ever created.
2. It cannot be demonstrated from Scripture that an infallible magisterium was perpetuated past the apostolic age.
3. It cannot be demonstrated from primary historical sources that any consolidated, unified magisterium, fallible or infallible, ever existed in Rome under one bishop until nearly the end of the Second Century.
4. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can fall into catastrophic error.
5. It can be demonstrated from Scripture that even a divinely ordained magisterium can be sent reformers from God for the purpose of correcting its catastrophic error.

Long story short, the dogs and cats analogy is NOT an analogy but a complete disconnect from Daniel's logic, and so does absolutely nothing to address or refute that logic. If you feel I have overlooked critical evidence of where the middle term fails to distribute properly, please let me know. I am fallible after all, and therefore am open to correction. :)

Peace,

SR

My point is that Luther’s non-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura has resulted in countless, often contradicting, interpretations and denominations, in opposition to Christ’s desire for Christian unity.

My point is that that claim is false. There is more agreement among differing Baptist denominations and other more bible based denominations by far than within the one giant umbrella of the RCC. Also that claim allows for all sorts of cults to be called Christian.

I see very much similarity in Mormonism and the RCC. In both there is a rejection of the simplicity of the bible and a more interesting, to man, doctrine is derived from some of the names and truths plagerized from the bible. The Mormon source is Joe and the RCC source is "because we said so".

"Because we said so" has far more influence than the things written in the bible.

So why do us bible thumpers care about you RCs?

"Who is made to stumble and I don't burn with indignation".

Anyone using the Lord's name should know the truth about Him and not be distracted by old wives fables about a woman who is claimed to be His mother.

- It has ever been the prophet who is raised up with the purpose of straightening them boys out.

That is correct, that while the magisterial office is valid, and instrumental in preserving Truth, yet God often raised up men from with the magisterium to reprove it, and to provide His word and preserve it, and faith.

Thus the church began upon the apostles and prophets, not the historical magisterium which they were disobedient to.

However, Rome presumes the same error of those who sat in the seat of Moses in the time of Christ, that of presuming a level of assured veracity above that which is written, teaching for doctrines the traditions and commandments of men.

RCs even presumes that she has a infallible magisterium - a novelty in Scripture - and that such is even essential to known what Scripture is and means, and disallows rebuke of her, like the Pharisees of old.

Yet both writings as well as men of God were established as being so without a infallible magisterium, and overall it was the common people who believed John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus were of God. To such they responded,

But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:49)

And thus they also demanded of Christ, an itinerant preacher as far as official magisterial sanction was concerned, by what authority He ministered, and its source. But in response the Lord invoked the ministry of another itinerant preacher, asking where his authority came. Which they would not answer, since the common people recognized what they would not.

But under the Roman model for authority and validity then the historical magisterium of the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of the promises of God of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.

And since Israel was this entity (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) over whom the Scribes and Pharisees sat, (Mt. 23:2) then under the basic Roman model then 1st c. souls should have submitted to them, and rejected those whom it did not sanction but rejected, rather than follow their own judgment in the light of Scriptural evidence.

Yet instead they followed an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

If Israel was punished for every prophet from Abel to Zacharias, I wonder who will catch the grief for all the prophets since Zacharias?

, God has sent prophet type preachers, and wise men, and scribes (Matthew 23:34) and true to form, some of them Rome has killed or scourged or otherwise persecuted from city to city, the righteous blood cries out for judgment (Prots also have some blood) like that of Abel, and which the elitist Roman institution shall suffer for in the day that she is abased, and she shall be abased.

But my prayer is all will come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him.

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.