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.

Therefore: It was possible for the people of Israel (and others) to know Jesus is God if they accepted Him as an authority on God.

The Church does not teach that an infallible Magesterium is “required” or “necessary” to know the things of God,

You are jumping in here while being ignorant of the premise i was refuting, which was that without an infallible magisterium then we could not know what was of God. Thus such questions like , "ince nobody is infallible, how do you know that's really true?" like that the Apostle John really explicitly wrote something.

While this may not be what you interpret Rome as teaching, yet as i had just provided , Cardinal Avery Dulles did claim ,

"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."

And the Catholic Encyclopedia asserted,

It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

The whole argument is that the Cath magisterium has uniquely received the revelation from on high, only by which can we really know what Divine revelation consists of and means, thus we need faith in this intermediary authority to correctly know what the word of God is and means.

Since your take is contrary to what was being argued against by my response, then your claim of a strawman indicts fellow RCs, not me. But while you allow souls being correct without an infallible magisterium, other RCs would argue it is essential for authority and to really know Truth For if souls could be correct without the magisterium, then the censure of "private interpretation" and disallowance of dissent loses force, and some preachers may really be of God though not sanctioned by them as such. Which some RCs find intolerable and can quote RC teaching to support it.

What you need to provide is the basis for the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

Many other RCs basically argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

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.

But there was no "chair of Peter".

Your entire thesis gets hung up, right there.

The earliest centuries church had no singular "pope" whom all looked towards as being authority over all others.

The Pharisees claimed to occupy seat of Moses.

Peter was not declared to be a Moses.

Whatever notion of Peter being a primary figure and example -- was not an inheritable position with true authority from above given over to whomever would in later centuries claim such distorted nonsense as the church having been organized with vertical hierarchy, with one among all others being set apart, to be above and over all others.

How many times must these things be pointed out?

Matthew 16, meet Matthew chapter 18 read 'em and weep? bwaahahaa

Once it sinks in, then one can see how useless and wrong the rest of the argument of necessity is, for that latter day justification (there must be one single head) circles right back to needing have one's righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.

To then adopt approaches to God and how men & cultures should be taught to regard Him (until individuals can meet with Him themselves, thus Know who He is) similar to how the Scribes and Pharisees had virtually scribbled upon the margins of what had been handed down to them --- circle right back to half-empty claim of themselves having been sole heirs to seat of Moses.

You wanna be seen as a Moses?

Do the work of a Moses. (or be but a placeholder at best -- or else in the way of those whom better know Him)

Anyone wanna be seen as a successor to Paul, Peter, James, Philip, Barnabas, Timothy, Mark -- then do the works they did. And that work cannot be done unless one comes to the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord in manner and ways similar to how they came to that same knowledge.

I've prayed for the sick and had them recover. Have you?

I wish that I could say that at all times I've enjoyed success in this, but I cannot.

I do recall one time when a Pastor of church I was attending asked everyone to pray for him. He'd been suffering pains, and had gone to see physicians who ran tests and told him it was his liver.

For what I can only credit the leading of the holy Spirit -- I somehow knew immediately as I was walking forward towards him to lay hands on him and pray for healing that it was not his liver that was the problem.

As more than a few gathered around him, I moved around behind him, put my hands on his back (about where I'd expect his kidneys to be adjacent to) and out loud prayed that God would heal his kidneys. Doing so, I was the odd man out. Someone praying at that same time offered correction to me -- it's his liver, not his kidneys, almost like I was just big dummy or something...lol.

After we were all done the Pastor graciously thanked me though, telling me, "I appreciate you praying for my kidneys, but it's the liver that need prayers".

We all sat back down in the pews except himself who remained standing. I recall him saying "I feel better already".

A couple of months or more later, perhaps even four or five months later...the Pastor told me that he had changed physicians, and that doctor had reviewed the records (the tests and treatments) and informed him that the prior diagnosis had been incorrect, the problem had been with his kidneys all along instead of the liver, his liver checked out ok --- and that he no longer had the kidney problem.

Although...if memory serves, it seems like Roger (the pastor) mentioned something along the line ---- that there may have been some confirming test, that there had been recently some stress or another suffered by the kidneys? I not precisely certain as for a test showing past kidney illness...but it seems there was something along those lines.

I do remember the Pastor talking to me about it later, asking how I knew it was the kidneys and not his liver...and come to think of it now, being as he spoke of this off and on for months previous to a half-dozen or so of the church praying for him --- I seem to recall having the thought --- kidneys, not liver, from the first time he said he announced he was having liver problems. After a while, with a few mentions of the problem I had begun to think "ok, liver" since that's what a doctor had been persistently telling him, and he was making occasional mention of to the assembly --- because the Pastor was in genuine discomfort.

Curiously enough I recall also this same Pastor having relayed to myself at another time and setting that the Lord had revealed to him that I would become an apologist --- and good one too. Perhaps I'm still waiting for that second "good one" portion to kick in, I dunno...

The Pastor told me one more thing at the time he was telling me about kidneys and asking me "how did I know"; that at a future time, come what may, he would be willing to back up what I'm telling about now. It's only been about 15 to 16 years by now? Does any of this make myself in charge, over others? Not necessarily, but I am at the least acquainted with the Lord, and can provide personal testimony as for the genuineness of His existence, and that He does confirm the written Word.

I'm not alone in this sort of thing, of course, and hallelujah for that. A three-fold cord is not easily broken...much less many strands and cords distributed widely amongst people(s).

When Peter and John had been arrested and taken before "their rulers, elders, and scribes, as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest" and Peter was finished giving them something of a dressing down;

Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.

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.