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.
Your joking right? You don’t understand the concept of “the male sex” and the “female sex”. When they have the box to mark your sex on your drivers license did you put “yes” or “no” or did you mark “M” for male or “F” for female?
If you look at the process of salvation in the NT it follows along these lines:
Hear the word
Believe the word leading to repentance and receiving the Holy Spirit
Baptize
Do you really think that Peter, who was witness to the 3000, Cornelius and the Samaritans would all of a sudden say that "just baptizing", that is getting dunked with no change, no repentance, would save someone?
Noah and his family were saved because of their...wait for it...faith in God and His ability to deliever them.
Baptism is the expression of that faith in God and His ability to save you.
A person is believing a false narrative if they think just going under the water and getting wet is what saves them. Without faith and repentance, it just makes them a wet sinner.
Origin of PRIESTThis, I'd add, is yet another case of where the Protestant "either/or" view can blind people to reality (which accommodates "both/and"). There's no incompatibility between "priest" and "mature man with seasoned judgment". Re: the idea of young men being priests or bishops, see below.
Middle English preist, from Old English prēost, ultimately from Late Latin presbyter — more at presbyter
Origin of PRESBYTER
Late Latin, elder, priest, from Greek presbyteros, comparative of presbys old man, elder; akin to Greek pro before and Greek bainein to go — more at for, come
"Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:11b-12)...and the fervent, repeated advice of St. Paul:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. [...] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry -- it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better (1 Corinthians 7:32-38)Or, do you have a problem with such advice from St. Paul and from Jesus, Himself? Is the "Bible alone" not good enough, in this case? It's absolutely clear that the Church policy of clerical celibacy is not only allowed by God, but it's PRAISED. No one's forcing you (or anyone else) to follow suit, mind you... so why should it bother you? It's perfectly biblical, and it's sensible.
(ping)
Question: can you please show me the exact place in the text where it says that any of these people were SAVED at those times that you mention? I don't see that, anywhere.
For the 3000...Acts 2:47 "praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved."
For Cornelius...Acts 10:43-48...esp v47..."surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
Who receives the Holy Spirit? Believers in Christ. They are secure in this as noted in Eph 1:13-14.
Eunuch....Acts 8:35-38..."and as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized? And Philip said, "if you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
This is noted in John 3:16 and many other places....belief in Christ is necessary for salvation. And for those who do believe, they have eternal life.
Yes... and? Read 1 Peter 3:19 for a description of the holy, righteous people who were "in prison" but awaiting their release into Heaven.
No where does 1 Peter 3:19 say what you're indicating. These are not "holy, righteous" people which is made clear in v20. v20 notes these spirits were disobedient referring back to the people who rejected God in the time of Noah.
They die without benefit of baptism, good works, etc.
Are they counted as a believer or just some poor dude who is not a believer because he didn't get baptized?
Excellent point; I would normally attribute it to ignorance of anything beyond their own religious tradition, except for the fact that the Orthodox are a witness that the Reformation is illegitimate and not built on the foundation of the Jewish apostles and prophets. That is the reason the Reformation was insufficient and there is a flood of new religious denominations, sects, communities, and cults flowing out of Protestantism with a focus on Restorationist faith groups.
Do you know that Catholics are still FORBIDDEN from buying a bible and reading it?? Yep that is so
Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise there from more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission, may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Book-dealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. (Council of Trent, Tridentine Rules: Rule 4)
" . . . no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold," (Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books")
You jest of course?
The Priest orders Christ down..puts him in bread (that He can not leave at His will) and then LOCKS Him in a tabernacle
UMMMM
And with all the catholic writings out there who knows.
LOL kidding of course.. I live in a very RC area.. let me assure you that Catholic have no fear of sin.. they can just bring in their list to the priest,say 3 Hail Mary's and 3 Our Fathers ...and they are good to go ..I hear blasphemy , cursing, filthy jokes ...I see drunkenness, regularly in people that just ate christ...
Then there is always the "back up"purgatory
... See terycarl the saved hate their sin..they have no desire to roll around in it then take a bath to "look" presentable.
We are no longer slaves to sin ... we no longer love our sin or take joy in it.. When we sin..we run to the cross because we know we must thank our Savior for forgiving it ..
Nope no priests in the NT Pal...
The MODERN DICTIONARIES have adapted Rome’s definition.. but to really know you have to look at what THE HOLY SPIRIT said in Greek..
You NEED A GREEK DICTIONARY
The greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.. archiereus which translates into “High Priest” and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.
The role of the priesthood in scripture was to offer sacrifices.. That is what a priest does in scripture.. God set aside one tribe to be priests, they were not granted any land as God was their inheritance .
The greek have a couple words for priest
hiereus
1) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
a) referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews,
2) metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ
and archiereus
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
3) Used of Christ because by undergoing a bloody death he offered himself as an expiatory sacrifice to God, and has entered into the heavenly sanctuary where he continually intercedes on our behalf.
Neither role is given in scripture for the new church ..
Christ fulfilled the role of Priest on the cross.. there is no more sacrifice for sin
He is now our High Priest..
The word for elder is presbyteros here is the GREEK definition
1) elder, of age,
a) the elder of two people
b) advanced in life, an elder, a senior
1) forefathers
2) a term of rank or office
a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
c) the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God
Now the Holy Spirit knows the difference in the greek words.. there is no priesthood provided for in the NT church.
There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..
Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,
“Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions.”
“A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, ‘overseer’). In English this came to be translated as ‘bishop’ (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community’s Eucharistic assembly.”
“When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title ‘priest’ (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist.”
Ohhh it is still in force.. Trent was an INFALLIBLE council that EVERY POPE MUST AFFIRM ...so Francis had to agree with every word of Trent.. including that
Today on the pope gregory calendar is Thor’s Day, May 7.
Today on the Father’s calendar is His 3rd Day, the 18th Day of His 2nd month. The 3rd day of ‘manna’ from heaven’ for Israel according to scripture.
Amazing the difference.
Amazing how after 30 days of their deliverance from Egypt, He gave them manna from heaven.
After 60 days, they heard the Law thundered down from the mount.
And after 100 days, they received the tables of the covenant written by His Finger, sealed with His name, title and territory in His Sabbath Commandment and because of the golden calf 3000 people died.
What a blessing when one rejects the world’s timekeeping how one can see things like the parable of the sower in the old testament before He gave the parable in the next testament.
But you are welcome to thor’s day..
And welcome to think the birth of the ‘church’ is in a couple weeks when scripture says something different..
30/60/100 in the wilderness is only seen when one rejects the world’s timekeeping.
I wish I had the time to present the truth as clearly and vigorously as you do. Your efforts to help the RCs out of darkness by presenting the true light of Jesus and His grace is an act of extreme kindness. Someday they will know your words were needed. Keep up the good work.
Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς, ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα· νεωτέρους, ὡς ἀδελφούς· 2 πρεσβυτέρας, ὡς μητέρας· νεωτέρας, ὡς ἀδελφάς, ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ.Which translates as:
Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; (2) The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.Is Paul talking about the office of elder? Hardly, because the passage proceeds to cover proper communication with younger men, older women, and younger women, clearly focusing on age, or age in combination with modes of showing respect.
Acts 23:14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. (KJV)Which in the Douay Rheims comes out as:
23:14 Who came to the chief priests and the ancients, and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing till we have slain Paul.So your own translators have punted on this, avoiding both "priest" for "presbuteros," because what nonsense it would be to translate it thus:
23:14 Who came to the chief priests and the [priests], and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing till we have slain Paul.All this to say it matters little for Bible translation purposes what "preost" had bundled into it's meaning in the 12th Century. What matters for translation is, who is my target audience, and how do I get them to hear, in their own, current language, what the Bible actually says in the original, unimpeded by my own biases as translator?
[after discussing the standard "presbuteros" theory ... ]Granted, this is a minority position. But I find it fascinating that an alternate theory even exists. Take the "v" out of "prevost" and viola! you have "preost!" Which again highlights the need to be careful about relying too heavily on long chains of etymology. Lexicography doesn't rely on a single fragile data point drawn from an irrelevant time period, but on a large number of data points all working together to give us an accurate view of how a word was used during the period of history and by the people most relevant to our inquiry. We want to know how Paul used presbuteros, not how Chaucer used preost.
An alternative theory (to account for the -eo- of the Old English word) makes it cognate with Old High German priast, prest, from Vulgar Latin *prevost "one put over others," from Latin praepositus "person placed in charge," from past participle of praeponere (see provost). In Old Testament sense, a translation of Hebrew kohen, Greek hiereus, Latin sacerdos[!?] (emphasis added by me).
From here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest
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.