Posted on 04/28/2015 8:36:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Its 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; thats 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 cant! 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. Its 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. Johns 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 Johns intention for us to become believers by reading it? Amazing; isnt 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.
Regal:ROFL!!!!!
You think that's FUNNY????
Peter rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (small stone) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (cliff, boulder, Abbott-Smith).
4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff (TDNT, 3, 100). 4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) a mass of connected rock, which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is a detached stone or boulder (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a solid or native rock, rising up through the earth (Souter) a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
Its also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,
and
A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm
Petra ALWAYS refers to Jesus in Scripture.
Are you infallible?
Because if you aren't then you are expressing nothing more than your fallible opinion about the article.
Where does that leave you?
Are you infallible?
Because if you aren’t then you are expressing nothing more than your fallible interpretation of the article.
You CANNOT be sure that we are wrong unless you are sure you are right, and if you are fallible, you can never be sure you’re right nor can you be sure if the Catholic church is correct either.
Heh heh.
A commandment to “eat my flesh” does not exist anywhere in the word.
A figurative reference to “eating my flesh” referring to his sacrifice on the cross occurs in John chapter 6, and in verse 63 he affirms that is purely a spiritual reference.
Nice try though!
Still smell that serpent...
Catholic Revisionist history proves nothing.
Nothing was added.
The commandments remain unchanged.
Of course.
The HOLY SPIRIT guides us into all truth and while the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, it is itself not the truth.
It’s supposed to uphold the truth, which is the word of God and that is NOT something that the Catholic church does when it denigrates it and puts the magisterium and “sacred tradition” on equal or greater footing than the word of God itself.
Actually, you need to provide the verse that states that "the Roman Catholic Church is not the real Church"?
Show us where the phrase *Roman Catholic church* appears in Scripture.
Show us where the phrase “the Roman Catholic Church is the real Church” is in Scripture and then you might have cause to claim that it the one true church that Jesus founded.
Claiming to be it retroactively means nothing.
So Wrong. Peter=Petra=Petras=Kepha
All refer to Peter. The first pope
Easy enough to refute.
"And John answered and said, 'Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.' And Jesus said to him, 'Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us'." (Luke 9:49,50)
Of course Rome would have anyone who is not bowing to the Pope is against them, but that is another discussion.
What happened to "the word of mouth" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ?
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
We Catholics know. The letters are the Bible, preserved by the Catholic Church.
What happened to the word of Mouth? What happened to all those things in John 21:25 that could fill more books than the world could hold?
The Church of Scripture is the catholic Church. Only after the heresy of the reformation was there a need to add a descriptor to the church.
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.