Posted on 04/28/2015 8:36:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Ha!!
I might understand these objections had the Catholic Church used it so much.
However, the Romans have hardly used in their history. Only once after it was formally defined in the Vatican I council.
Who in the world would say they follow those men instead of Jesus Christ? That is as bad as Catholics saying they are Catholics instead of Chistians. I am 71 and have never heard anyone say they are Baptists, Methodists, etc unless asked which church they attend and then they tell the name. Those men do not have anything to do with salvation. Why do y’all keep harping on that?
Jesus was/is The Rock not some man.
Jesus is the Rock not some man
ROFL!!!!!
Go ahead and laugh at the truth. It is still the truth.
Because they keep going to made-up churches, believing made-up traditions of men. This is not what Christ wanted. Christ established His Church. One, not many.
Scripture also warns against another gospel and another Jesus that Paul taught.
And that is why Roman teachings good Friday instead of passover and Easter Sunday instead of First Fruits is at the most simple test of all things that Rome has another ‘gospel’ and another Jesus..
But protestants would be hard pressed to see it either.. they like Rome when they want to.,
I have attended many different churches over my 71 years. Everyone taught directly from the Bible. I know because I took my Bible with me from the time I was old enough to read. Y’all keep saying we have different beliefs but we all believe the Bible is God’s Holy Word. I have noticed y’all seem to have different beliefs. So, get off your high horse. Y’all are not perfect just like everyone else. God’s church is anywhere believers gather. Numbers do not matter.
No. Scripture says Peter is rock. I believe Scripture and Jesus. You are not infallible.
If the pope wasn’t “Infallible” when speaking on faith and morals what need would there be for him? IOW anyone of us could say or do what we wanted and still say we were following God’s laws as we see them. Free range Christians, or as some would call them, Muslims.
The Church of Rome has been around since Peter. What other made-up church can make that claim?
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” John 16:12-13
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Mat 28:18-20
Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church. They will arise, endure sometimes for centuries, like Protestantism, but we can be confident in Christ’s promise that the Church He established will always teach the Truth.
Now, look at Scripture and you see Christ gave much power to His Church :
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Mat 18:18
I note that the commenter, shortly after he posted that link was banned from posting any more replies to the blog post. I won't comment on that decision by Mr. Culliton; it's entirely possible that the commenter in question was as uncivil as Mr. Culliton claims (I didn't read all the posts there). But it would have been interesting to see any of the Protestants there, Mr. Culliton included, comment on the following below (taken from the link above) which directly, and in my opinion, clearly demonstrates the weakness of the type of argument Mr. Culliton employs here.
Note, the following (italicized) arguments taken from the Catholic Legate site are addressing the issue of "is it possible to demonstrate there is a NEED FOR, an infallible authority here on Earth with regards to Christian teaching/doctrine/dogma. These arguments alone (just the ones below) don't address whether or not "Rome" is the "true Church". For more on that, see the link.
Challenge 1: Tell us how you came to decide that Rome was the "true" church without engaging in the very private judgment that Rome condemns as illegitimate.
Response 1: Rome has never condemned private judgement per se. It condemns the error that sometimes comes from private judgement. St. James no doubt uttered his private judgement when he said, “Therefore, my judgement is….” (Acts 15:19). His judgement was singular, and therefore was private.
The question essentially reduces to the infallible-fallible card that Protestants try to play against Catholics. Catholics rightly ask Protestants to guarantee that they are preaching the ‘true gospel’ since there are many of them out there (Cf. Galatians 1:6-9). No Protestant, however, can guarantee the truthfulness of his gospel since it would mean calling in the question of the speaker’s infallibility. In order to validate his interpretation over his Protestant opponent, the first Protestant must claim something that his opponent does not have; namely, the charism of infallibility. For the Gospel to have any true and definitive meaning (which it must), the Protestant must be able to appeal to a source which *cannot* be common to everyone. This source must be *outside* of the bible to show that any one Protestant’s interpretation is correct. If indeed the Gospel is God’s inspired, infallible Word, then what good is it if Christians cannot be certain that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached? If God did not make sufficient provision for the Gospel message to be declared infallibly, then God would not be God, He would be a sadist.
But, the Protestant will say, the Catholic is in the same position since he must make a private, fallible judgement on the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. He will claim that the Catholic is simply substituting one alleged infallible source (the Bible) with another (the Church). So we have the fallible Protestant reading an alleged infallible bible, and we have a fallible Catholic listening to an alleged infallible Church.
But is the Protestant construction of the problem a fair one? Nope. You see, some propositions are manifestly infallible by their very nature. For instance, there are plenty of historical, mathematical, and scientific facts which are beyond speculation. Likewise, I propose that it is a naturally manifest and infallible fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. Now, there are not too many Churches that even claim such a charism so I will restrict myself to simply proving from reason alone that one must believe that God established an infallible Church. Once this is conceded, then we may turn our attention to try and find out which Church it is.
The following arguments, obviously, presuppose that I am addressing this question to a Protestant who believes in God. Of course, I would have to prove a few of these premises if I were addressing an atheist which is not within the scope of this examination.
Argument 1
Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: God is omnipotent.
Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth.
Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today.
Conclusion: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly (or He does want the truth to be known but has not provided the means - an impossibility give premise 2)
Argument 2
Premise 1: The truth can be known..
Premise 2: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly. (Conclusion of Argument 1)
Conclusion: Therefore, God wants the truth in the Holy Scriptures to be known ONLY fallibly.
Overall Conclusion
Since God wills the gospel message to be known only with the possibility of error (that is, fallibly), then God wills the possibility of error in communicating His truth. The conclusion therefore is that God has contradicted His very being by willing something that cannot be; namely, willing something other than the truth.
It is important to distinguish between the mere existence and tolerance of error versus the normative declaration and existence of it in communicating the Gospel message. We are not talking about simply willing the possibility of error. Obviously, God has, by definition, done that through free will. The implication of the above conclusion is not simply that God tolerates error, but that He also wills the possibility of error IN COMMUNICATING THE GOSPEL MESSAGE ITSELF. God can tolerate error ON OUR PART, but He cannot, by definition, even allow the possibility of it when He speaks about what is Truth. Now, the question for [any Protestant] is this: In order to reject the conclusion, which premise does he reject?
[To remain a Christian, one must reject Premise 4 in Argument 1. If this premise is rejected, however, sola scriptura is also rejected, and an infallible human authority is conversely conceded, which means I have at least proven that we require an infallible teacher. [The Protestants'] challenge specifically asks if Rome is that ‘true’ Church. I will address that issue in Challenge 3. This response at least establishes the necessity of having a true and infallible church in the first place, which represents half the battle.]
As I said, more at the link.
I re-post this here because it's something that comes up from time to time here, and these arguments weren't addressed (that I can see) in the blog's replies section. I'd be interested to hear how one replies to these, staying within the boundries of the arguments (that is, not trying to obfuscate the issue by bringing up Mary's sinlessness, or, how can we know that "Rome" is the true church [ for more on that see the link ]). I'd just be interested in replies that address these arguments. All others will be ignored by me for being off-topic.
Thanks,
If you were: born of woman and ‘pooped’ at any time in your existence, within your undergarments, you are not infallible.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.It's either/or. If you belong to Christ, you have His Spirit. If you don't have His Spirit, you don't belong to Christ. It never ceases to amaze me how some folks think their so-called organizational pedigree trumps the resurrection power of Jesus Christ working in the dead heart of the lost sinner to bring about the life of a new creation. This is even more confounding when the so-called historical pedigree can't even be demonstrated by the serious historical analysis of primary sources. Fallibility on steroids.
(Romans 8:9)
Your argument falls down right here.
What does Scripture say is the pillar and foundation of truth? It is not Scripture:
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
The Church teaches the Truth.
The roman jesus born on December 25, killed on good Friday and raised on easter Sunday is a counterfeit.
And testing and proving all things with the scriptures the roman catholic church has given us proves it if one has eyes to see..
The church is as phony as the counterfeit they have created according to their catechism..
I don’t disagree with what you said, but I think you have mis-interpreted the reasoning behind the arguments I’ve posted. I’m a Catholic (of the Latin Rite). In communion with the Bishop of Rome.
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.