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.

Again, I appreciate your response, and I understand the objections you have raise. But the point of my response was to show that your claim of an undistributed middle in Daniel’s logic was spurious, and I believe that mater is now settled in Daniel’s favor.

Well... this particular point isn't one for which I'm willing to make heroic efforts; so I'll give you that point. MY point was, if I could re-word it, an effort to point out (among other things) an illicit equivalence in Daniel's definition of "infallible magisterium" (the "seat of Moses" was authoritative, but it did not convey infallibility); the Jewish authorities never even CLAIMED to be infallible, so comparing them to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is both odd and a bit misleading. But again: I'll give you (and Daniel) the specific point about it not being a specific "undistributed middle" fallacy, and attribute it to hasty reading on my part... and I'll gladly withdraw it (and beg your pardons).

One more point, and only because it bothers me. In describing the failure of the magisterium as catastrophic, I cannot imagine what would be more catastrophic that to reject and kill the Son of God.

:) Hm. On the one hand, it's very difficult to argue with that! On the other hand, I was trying to figure out just how limited your use of the word "Magisterium" was; if you were limiting it to the Jewish authorities (which is fine, though the word "magisterium" is almost never used to describe Jewish teaching authorities--hence my wariness), and if you weren't seeking to make any comparisons between them and the Catholic Church (that would be an apples/oranges comparison, anyway), then I'd not complain at all... and I definitely think that killing God is a cataclysmic (and maximally evil) mistake for any teaching authority to do. I was just being wary about possible forays into the idea of, "So you see, Magisteriums can be infallible... therefore, the Catholic Church [etc., etc.]"... which WOULD have been an "undistributed middle" fallacy.

We do uphold the teaching and magisterial office...

No you don't. At least not that I've ever seen, unless you wish to state now that you, Daniel, are a Presbyterian, since you do tend to post passages from the WCF from time to time. Are you a Presbyterian?

It is certainly not necessary to be a Presbyterian in order to invoke Westminster, any more than one must be a Lutheran in order to invoke something Luther said in this context, for the debate as i understood you as framing it has been btwn the Protestant position and that of Rome, and thus it is entirely fitting that i invoke a classic Prot source in that regard. And the issue should be SS versus SE, sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia (that of the infallible church being effectively supreme over Scripture), based on historical teaching.

However, if you wanted to define Protestant belief by what you see certain RCs expressing then you are only arguing against what you wrongly assume i hold to, while in any case you can only argue for the need for the magisterial office, which i affirm, both benefiting from it and in being subject to authority which Scripture says in whatever church i have been part of, as Scripture says, . "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls..." (Hebrews 13:17) Just this Wednesday night i did what the pastor asked me to in giving a message, while i also have stated on FR before that the ideal would be a centralized magisterium, if not being above Scripture as Rome effectively makes herself.

But while you can argue for the validity and viability of the magisterial office, it remains that you cannot provide any example of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome in Scripture, nor of its necessity. But i can show that God did provide manifest men and wholly inspired writings of God, which were discerned and established as being so without a perpetual IM. And that God has left us with a wholly inspired infallible source of Truth, by which Truth claims are tested and established, and that the NT church began with laymen recognizing men of God as being so in the light of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium.

Moreover, since you want to go by what laity believe, the problem under sola ecclesia, versus unchanging Scripture being the infallible supreme authoritative source of Truth, is that since it directs souls to directly look to leadership as supreme in providing Truth and interpreting it, versus examining the evidence for warrant, then when the leadership goes south then so do most of the people. SSPX and SSPV RCs who expose the contrasts btwn past historical teaching and modern V2 interpretation of it become like Protestants in principal. For instead of obeying such teaching as "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors" (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X, 1906) they presume to determine Truth based upon their interpretation of historical teachings, not what the present pastors teach and convey it as being.

In addition to V2, the local level is usually is where most RCs look for the interpretation of what higher magisterial teaching means. And any claim to being more strict or effectual or rigid than in evangelical churches is fantasy, as it is manifest that liberal RCs find a home in Rome far more than in evangelical churches overall, and what one does and effects is what Scripturally constitutes the evidence of what one really believes. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) Every time Rome even honors a Teddy K, Menino, Chavez with a RC funeral she shows her interpretation of canon law, and examples how fluid and accommodating she can be.

If not, if you are going to state like everyone else around here that "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian" or similar non-committal statements, then you most certainly do not "uphold the teaching and magisterial office." I'm fully aware of the theoretical definition of "sola scriptura".

Once again you are displaying your ignorance of the RF, as well as using a convenient definition of "Protestant." No, not everyone else around here says "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian." I recently argued against a "don't need the visible church" post. And i am sure the other poster (SR) does not hold to that either. Either argue with me as one who upholds the validity and viability of the teaching and administrative office but who denies as novel and unScriptural the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, or argue with those who deny the former in principal. ,

The only authority you rely upon is Scripture. When asked to support your claims nothing else is given other than Scripture and your interpretation of it. You never give any other authoritative reason.

Really? Meaning i when i provide Scriptural substantiation as the supreme authoritative source then the weight of that does not count as an authoritative reason, and when i provide such a source as Westminster in upholding magisterial authority then it must be dismissed as not admissible in my case, and deemed as "nothing else!" Either you only see what you want to see or dismiss me as a liar or you simply reject any authoritative reason outside a perpetual IM, the very thing that needs to be proved.

So you are your own authority. Whether you want to admit it or not is not my concern.

Actually, what i have argued for is that unlike Rome, i am not my own authority, as the veracity of what i contend for must rest upon the weight of substantiation of the only wholly infallible comprehensive material body of Truth that we have, but which you do not hold as supreme. For in contrast, Rome is indeed her own authority, as Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

If you mean that i determine what i will hold as my supreme authority, and to varying degrees what it means, then that is what RCs does themselves, making a fallible decision to trust in a (self-declared) infallible authority, and to varying degrees what she means. And while in both cases they hold to their respective infallible sources, yet as Ratzinger states.

Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience [which is to be properly formed] confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" [though not necessarily being correct, or having ensured veracity]. - (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1).

I may be configuring another PC for a while and so may not be back for a while.

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.