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.
To deny that is more proof of the dangers of Luther’s tradition of Sola Scriptura.
Uhhh....not quite.
ἐπισκοπῆς means overseer in Greek. No mention of bishop. Also notice the text indicates one aspires to this office....you're not appointed.
To deny this is to deny the Greek which is what the NT was written in.
Those women priests may have a claim if the Catholic Church stands by it's position on the word presbuteros. "Oh what tangled web they weave".
ROFLOL!! And “only on Saturday night” doesn’t work either!
I'm expecting double speak but no proof of it being rescinded.
It's necessary unless it isn't silly.
This just cannot be. I know “it be”, but..well, I’m at a loss for words over this. really
There’s tremendous freedom in knowing that your salvation is secure.
I know that some think that means freedom to sin, but they’re simply projecting. It’s what they’d do if they had the choice, if they felt they had freedom.
But the freedom is not that. It’s freedom from religious activity that accomplishes nothing in the way of salvation. It’s freedom from works and rituals and sacraments and laws and depriving yourself from things God gave us to enjoy.
It’s freedom from being a slave to sin.
It’s freedom from fear, worry, guilt, and condemnation.
It gives a peace that is beyond comprehension, that allows you to TRULY enjoy live and NOT feel guilty about having a good time.
Or priests......
AMEN. It’s also having the freedom to get to know God through His Word, without fear. There was a time when I was afraid to read the Bible, because if I came across something that I could not do I was going to be condemned by God. Before a person is saved, all kinds of crazy things go through their heads!
Catholics prohibited from owning Scripture
COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.
The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon:
“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.” (-D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.)
Of course.....
Clear as mud.....
The Catholic Church did teach people to read. They were the Continent-wide INSTITUTION that taught people to read. Latin was the only literary language in the West until Chaucer popularized a literary Middle English (14th century) and Dante a colloquial and literary Tuscan Italian (also 14th century) --- and the Church taught Latin not only for Scripture, but for philosophy, astronomy, medicine, mathematics, history, geography,physics, the Triuvium and the Quadrivium --- you know! --- architecture and public works, government, law, courts, the military, trade and commerce --- because there was a Latin-speaking-and-reading culture from Prague to Belfast and from Oslo to Palermo.
This was vastly accelerated by the Catholic Gutenberg, whose development of mechanical movable type printing started the Catholic Printing Revolution and is widely regarded as the most important event of the modern period, and led to the Catholic Renaissance and the explosive growth of printing and reading of all kinds, very much including Scripture.
For your information.
Saying the Church didn't teach the common people to read is like saying Aunt Jemima don't make pancakes.
...she doesn’t....she makes pancake MIX...;)
It’s amazing what the enemy will do to keep people from the word.
OK OK OK!
They didn't want the common folk to read the Word....notice the Reformation happened as the Word became more available.
Your own USCCB admits catholics were not encouraged to read the Word until the 20th century.
Yep. Especially when doing His great commission for the body of Christ: Preaching reconciliation between man and God. Once a person is saved (reconciled to God) by the finished work of Christ (2 Cor. 5:14-21), that person becomes an ambassador for Him (2Cor. 6:1). But if that person thinks he must constantly have to keep his eye on himself (in order to GET saved), he cannot possibly get his eye on his brother. And the enemy wins another soul.
I believe you are correct. It has been pointed out to a number of people, that this is BOGUS, but it does not seem to sink in. I won't mention any names, but the guilty parties know who they are. 😃
It’s freedom from religious activity that accomplishes nothing in the way of salvation. It’s freedom from works and rituals and sacraments and laws and depriving yourself from things God gave us to enjoy. It’s freedom from being a slave to sin. It’s freedom from fear, worry, guilt, and condemnation.
Yes, freedom from all those false religious rites and rituals. We are not slaves to sin anymore. We are free to do what we should, not to do what we please. Once again, not brain surgery.
It gives a peace that is beyond comprehension, that allows you to TRULY enjoy live and NOT feel guilty about having a good time.
I agree, but just a point of clarification, so one of those previously mentioned guilty parties does not deliberately misinterpret that. When we have a good time, we don't mean going out and getting drunked up, and all kinds of other stupid things. We mean we go to church, prayer meetings, we go to Jack's Ridge, we go see a hockey game. Good clean fun, but not evil things. Everyone should try it. 😎
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Sound familiar?
When I was a catholic, I don't recall if they even hinted that I could not read the Bible, but wouldn't that be like a bull fighter putting a cape in front of a bull?
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.