Posted on 04/28/2015 8:36:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
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.
We don't think they are optional either. They will come in the context of true faith. Do you see why we see this as a straw man yet? Optional to what purpose? Do they cause salvation? No. Do they occur in a saved person? Absolutely, yes. So where is this "optional" business coming from? Neither of us thinks of good works as optional. Can we please please please get off that worn out old hobby horse?
Peace,
SR
Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come.This is the reason why the Bible can say that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Romans 3:28), and can at the same time say that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Those who see a contradiction in these two statements simply don't know logic: since neither says that its particular "part" is sufficient ALONE for justification (even Romans 3:28 only says that it's apart from works OF THE LAW--i.e. the non-Decalogue Mitzvot, and not apart from ALL WORKS WHATSOEVER [which many Protestants/Evangelicals on this board seem to believe]), there is no conflict at all. It's a bit like saying that "water is made of hydrogen, and not of oxygen alone", and then saying that "water is made of oxygen, and not of hydrogen alone"; both statements are true (since neither said that water is made of water ALONE or hydrogen ALONE). It's only when someone or other tries to take one and say that it--and it ALONE--constitutes the matter, that such people fall into serious error.
There are two parodies of the truth which different sets of Christians have, in the past, been accused by other Christians of believing: perhaps they may make the truth clearer. One set were accused of saying, "Good actions are all that matters. The best good action is charity. The best kind of charity is giving money. The best thing to give money to is the Church. So hand us over £10,000 and we will see you through."
The answer to that nonsense, of course, would be that good actions done for that motive, done with the idea that Heaven can be bought, would not be good actions at all, but only commercial speculations. The other set were accused of saying, "Faith is all that matters. Consequently, if you have faith, it doesn't matter what you do. Sin away, my lad, and have a good time and Christ will see that it makes no difference in the end." The answer to that nonsense is that, if what you call your "faith" in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not Faith at all—not faith or trust in Him, but only intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him.
The Bible really seems to clinch the matter when it puts the two things together into one amazing sentence. The first half is, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"—which looks as if everything depended on us and our good actions: but the second half goes on, "For it is God who worketh in you"— which looks as if God did everything and we nothing. I am afraid that is the sort of thing we come up against in Christianity. I am puzzled, but I am not surprised.
You see, we are now trying to understand, and to separate into water-tight compartments, what exactly God does and what man does when God and man are working together. And, of course, we begin by thinking it is like two men working together, so that you could say, "He did this bit and I did that." But this way of thinking breaks down. God is not like that. He is inside you as well as outside: even if we could understand who did what, I do not think human language could properly express it.
God desires the salvation of all and baptism was physically impossible in this case.
One more time..the magisterium did not write the catechism ....The pope did not declare it ex cathedra....It is simply the work of men.. cobbled together and subject to change
It is a fallible document subject to change by an infallible statement by the pope or the magisterium
. It's long, and it's at a higher-than-average reading level, but I have confidence in you
..My question to you might be why would Rome need to write a catechism that the average guy could not understand? ...Is it sorta like the days they forbid Bible reading because Catholics were too dumb to understand ??
re: the hypothetical person whom you'd "help out of the Catholic Church, and into a good Bible Church": if he/she says, "how do I know your interpretation of the Scripture about the good thief isn't just your mere opinion, or the opinion of some pastor?", what would you tell him/her?
I would ask how knows what his priest says about it is true??
Have you read the Bible? If not scoot ....:)
No answer huh ??
< smile >
Infallible source on this ??
You do remember that it would only be a "problem" for sola Scriptura types... right? Those who don't subscribe to that illogical and unbiblical idea of Luther aren't particularly bothered by a lack of explicit "chapter/verse" references.
Waitaminnit there... I said what I said above in reply to your demand that I provide 'Chapter and Verse' for Judaism's infallibility claims.
As to Sola-scriptura... Knock yourself out... No skin off of my nose. Same to the Jews. Same to every other cult and sect that follows traditions of men. But expect your arguments to fall upon deaf ears here. I have studied the claims of your church. I have studied the wisdom of the elders, I have studied Luther and Calvin and Wesley... Thanks anyway, but I will revert to the original contract. What I can take to the bank are the words of El Shaddai. Those words are eternal, and will justify me in Messiah. What HE bids me do, that I will do, as best as I can. Where that intersects with y'all, or with the Jews, or with the Protestants, there we will find agreement... But where it differs, I will stay on the path that YHWH has so plainly laid.
[roamer_1:] BUT, it isn't quite the same - Judaism assumes the infallibility of their great rabbis because of their great knowledge - more like your 'doctors' than your magisterium and pope...
That's hardly an accurate representation of either Judaism or Catholicism. [...]
I think you misunderstand me.
Jews never asserted infallibility for their teachers at ALL--not even to famous and skilled ones such as Gamaliel (though they ascribed great weight to them, if they were good ones); [...]
Which is why I assigned 'Infallibility per se'... Your comment is almost without merit when one tries to consider how a whole people are moved from the relative simple living instructions of Torah to a religion that is so exhaustively incremental as to tell you how to put on your socks and shoes in the morning. They are certainly listening to somebody as if they were infallible... As a 'Christian Messianic', I get a lot of this stuff from our Jewish Messianic brothers - I have listened to countless hours of it, and it always boils down to an argument between Shammai and Hillel, or some such, when it should boil down to YHWH. Again, I will revert to the original contract. That's exactly what Yeshua did, and that's good enough for me.
[...] and Catholics do not ascribe infallibility to doctors of the Church.
I understand that. I never said they do - I was merely assigning Jewish 'doctors' that role by means of comparison with language you might better understand. The comparison was supposed to end there. Jews do not have a pope, and their Sanhedrin would seldom go against the words of great rabbis. Thus the 'infallibility per se' lies in the great rabbis.
Only the pope (or the bishops in union with the pope), when defining dogma which is binding on the entire Church, has the protection of infallibility.
Which 'protection' is demonstrably lacking, according to it's fruit, to one who does not presume inherently that your church is THE Church... That is why Torah still must be supreme - (one of) Torah's main purpose(s) is to allow every man to be able to discern that which is 'set apart' - That's 'sacred' for those of you in Rio Linda - If a church is calling sacred what isn't called sacred by YHWH, and ignoring as common those things that YHWH has unconditionally called sacred, then inherently, there must be a problem... Again, I must revert to the original contract. (See 'Sabbath' for the easy win).
[roamer_1:] It might just astound you at the similiarities.
Hm. I'm thinking that you're overestimating that, and you're not quite getting an accurate picture of either one; see above.
Or maybe, without a 'traditional' dog in the hunt, I might be able to see both more clearly.
[roamer_1:] A bunch of silly men claiming to be more than they are, in order to convince themselves that they are more than they are...
Oh, come now! Surely you see that this is merely your raw opinion/editorial? It would be just as inaccurate (and just as inflammatory) to say something like, "Look at all those Protestants... a bunch of silly little men, cobbling together their own personal religion from their own personal opinions which they inject into Scripture at their whim!"
Yes, it would. Maybe it would be better if we all simply consider, first and foremost the Word of He who created us, every one, and breathed his Life into one and all. When there is difference, do as HE says, and quit listening to any tradition.
Um... I think, with all due respect, that you're indulging in some of the very thing you accuse THEM of using; you're "declaring" that the rabbis (as a whole) are arrogant phonies... and we're supposede to believe that because... why?
Yet what is written will plainly damn us all - Wouldn't it make sense to at least TRY to get it right? Who best to listen to? Yeshua said to try to get it right - I think I will follow HIM... And here we are, back at the originating contract.
Such statements are plainly wrong... Not in my opinion, but in the Word, and in reality. All that such statements can do is reinforce the proclaimed authority of the 'leaders', regardless of whether where they are leading is good or true - And that's just dumb, no matter where you are. If one considers, it is submission to false authority that is the primary problem of every facet of life.
Because you say so? I'm sure that some rabbis (as well as some Catholic clergy, some Protestant clergy, some atheists, some Muslims, some Buddhists, etc.) ARE arrogant phonies; but I don't think anyone is in any position to "tar" them all with the same broad brush.
Understand that I am indicting systems, not persons. That seems to be a hard concept for those of the Roman church to grasp.
[roamer_1:] Infallibility per se,
Hold on. "Infallibility" (at least in the Catholic sense) is a technical term, which can't just be cobbled together out of opinions; it's not valid to say, "Well, that's infallibility, for all intents and purposes!" No... either something meets the strict standards for infallibility, or it does not.
'Infallibility per se' is speaking of the Wisdom of the Elders. I realize that Rome has been more definitive (regardless of if true).
[roamer_1:] as who can have greater knowledge than the teachers of the knowledge? See, theirs is circular too...
First: the rabbis didn't consider themselves infallible, as a rule (or else there would have been no possibility of debate [...]
Agreed, in the technical sense, yet no one will go against the great rabbis... Their knowledge is considered as close to infallible (per se) as possible without admitting the technicality.
[...] and no "quoting of other scholars and opinions" which made Jesus' teaching with authority so striking to the crowds of His day).[...]
Yes - What was so striking is that he didn't quote the rabbis, except in midrash (You have heard it said [...], But I say [...])... In fact, in every case, he assaulted their tradition.
Second, there's no equivalence between the rabbinic approach and the charism of infallibility (in the Catholic sense), aside from the fact that some FR commenters don't happen to like either of them.
Because yours is right and theirs isn't? Because yours is more defined than theirs? Meh. Still both are circularly defined by tradition that defines them - And both falsely attributed. As I said at the start of this conversation, it is the prophets that correct the scribes and teachers, and it always has been.
[roamer_1:] And at the local level, the 'seat of Moses' was much like your 'chair of Peter' = When the chief rabbi spoke from the seat of Moses, that settled the matter. Period.
It was "much like", yes... in terms of AUTHORITY. It was NOT "much alike" in terms of infallibility (which the Jews never claimed for themselves), and the infallibility of the pope is quite distinct from the AUTHORITY of the pope, anyway.
It is much the same thing - Absolute authority assumes it is infallible long before it is declared... It never remembers that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is nothing distinct about it - Both necessarily attempt to take their power away from YHWH.
[roamer_1:] Thankfully, the Rabbi to which I am enjoined tore that entire system down... Too bad all y'all didn't get the memo.
:) Er... FRiend... that same "Rabbi" built His Church, and safeguarded it against the gates of Hades! St. Matthew (via the Holy Spirit) sent you a memo to that effect, yes? (Matthew 16:18)
Indeed. Your mistake is in the assumption that yours is that Church.
[roamer_1:] The power to bind and loose cannot destroy Torah,
Of course not; nor can papal infallibility change even the tiniest bit of Divine Revelation. Did you think otherwise?
Yet it does (or rather, attempts to) - in every way (again, see Sabbath and the feasts for the easy win)...
He DIED to save us.
His stripes were for our healing, nothing else.
His suffering isn’t redemptive as far as our souls and our salvation are concerned.
Catholic’s problem is that they think the wrong thing saves.
Suffering doesn’t pay one iota for the least of any sin.
It’s only DEATH that pays for sin. Not even dying. Death.
I appreciate you enumerating the Catholic perspective on baptism. Must do it with such condescension?
More later, all... I need to, as RnMomof7 tells me, “scoot”! :) I shall return...
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.