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.

all liturgical texts were based on Scripture. That's something I think most people don't grasp the significance of.

Mormons can say the same, as Cath "based on Scripture" means, among other thing s, unScriptural beliefs such as the the novel and premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility; to presbyteros wrongly being distinctly called "hiereus" due to imposed functional equivalence; and presumptuously requiring basically all of them to have the gift of celibacy; to praying to created beings in Heaven.

Meanwhile, the actual Scripture hearing in Mass is largely redundant, or only small portions of Scripture, while the preaching of such is typically a perfunctionary 10 minute sermonette.

The more Scripture reading the better.

That was not the overall attitude of medieval Rome where she predominated.

I think the reason why this prospered more on the "peripheries" than in Europe, --- perhaps --- is because in Europe people saw the splitting and wrecking that occurred in the wake of the Protestant revolt: continent-wide warfare and the proliferation of belligerent movements: Lutherans against Anabaptists, Anglicans against Levelers, and on and on.

Such reasoning can be used be dictators to prevents dissension as well, seeing as freedom of thought has so often resulted in division. Indeed, if God has not given men the freedom to choose then the world would be perfect. Cults, which operate under the Roman sola ecclesia model, typically have the greatest degree of unity, which today Rome has less of, much due to the loss of her unholy sword of men. But such cultic unity is not Scriptural, and the limited degree of Scriptural NT unity was under Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with men who could say they were, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,... By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left... (2 Corinthians 6:4,7)

Rome's pseudo-successors lack both the qualifications and credentials of NT apostles, (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) and disunity is a judgment for lacking this manner of holy men.

Meanwhile, you left out what can happen when Rome loses her cultic control, and what happened prior to the needed, if imperfect, Reform-ation in the light of RC deformation :

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution."

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

Meanwhile, it was Protestant America that provided refuge for RCs, though many Founders were justifiably wary of allowing them.

Of which Benjamin Franklin (1706—1790. One of the Founding Fathers; leading thinker; author; printer; statesman; postmaster; diplomat, and a non-Christian deist) wrote, — ...serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. (Benjamin Franklin, "Information to those who would Remove to America" In Franklin, Benjamin. The Bagatelles from Passy. Ed. Lopez, Claude A. New York: Eakins Press. 1967; http://mith.umd.edu//eada/html/display.php?docs=franklin_bagatelle4.xml. Also, John Gould Curtis, American history told by contemporaries .... Volume 3, p. 26)

And, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859. French political thinker and historian; best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) — The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...

There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated, In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the state exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace...

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...

Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest.

They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free." (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)

Both the NT church and American began under principled dissent, but not against the idea of authority, but with exceptional men who held that authority cannot be autocratic (which Rome makes herself), despite its efficiency, but must be held accountable, with Scripture being the explicit (in the former case) and implicit supreme source of spiritual and moral Truth.

The present contrary condition in America is not due to SS with its basic hermeneutic, but corresponds to the increasing demotion of Scripture and declension from holding it as being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God - which liberal revisionism RC scholarship has taught for decades now even in her own NAB Bible.

You can see the results in the historic strongholds of the Reformation:

And in contrast to the historic strongholds of Catholicism? The Inquisitons, which some RCs here seem to long for with all their unScriptural means, would have a field day in such places as Spain, while multitudes of lost RCs have found life in evangelical churches, far more than apostates who cross the Tiber from there.

>It became appallingly clear that people who think they can appropriate Scripture for their own purposes,

You mean RCs do not have a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture in seeking to support traditions of Rome, and that those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are not far more unified in basic beliefs than the fruit of Rome overall?

It became appallingly clear that people who think they can appropriate Scripture for their own purposes, independently, may unwittingly be following the deceiver, the splinterer, Satan, who, as we know, can quote Scripture for his own purposes--- and does.

Thus according to Roman reasoning, God should not allow the devil to read Scripture, but instead, it was by Scripture that the Lord defeated the devil, overcoming error with Truth, (Mt. 4) while Rome increasingly elevated Tradition with their resorted to due to their inability to deal with heretics by Scripture, which they subsequently worked to prevent the laity from freely accessing on their own.

Meanwhile, division because of love of the Truth is superior than unity in error, which is where Rome sees her greatest unity, while her limited unity is largely a paper one, as Catholicism exists in schisms and sects, formal and informal, the latter of which Rome implicitly sanctions.

It doesn't have to turn out that way. With more charity, Scripture would lead to unity. That's what I would like to see.

Thus V2 must be unloving, since here you have RCs claiming that Catholicism exists in remnant form, with he SSPX being what is faithful to tradition, while other RCs call the former "Protestant" in essence, since they determine what to believe based upon their interpretation of what historical teaching means, rather than, "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS),

As one poster wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

There are no such things as priests in the New Testament church other then the priesthood of all believers.

Yes, there were, and there are; look for the Greek word "presbyteros" and "presbyteroi". There were also bishops (episkopos/oi) and deacons (diakonos/oi).

No priest found in any of those. presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder.

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

CB is correct, the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. The words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors - do not distinctively mean "priest."

But "presbyteros" most certainly IS used to describe all of the above... and "presbyteros" is the etymological root of our modern English word, "priest". Go check your favorite dictionary,

What occurred is that "presbuteros" in Greek (presbyter in Latin) was translated into English as "preost," and then "priest," but which also became the word used for "hierus" ("sacerdos" in Latin), losing the distinction the Holy Spirit made by never distinctively giving NT presbuteros the distinctive title hiereus.

Your dictionary proof is that of engaging in an etymological fallacy , since "priest" from old English "preost" etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, however, etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is a linguistic misconception, a genetic fallacy that erroneously holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to or the same as its original or historical meaning. So that since presbyteros incorrectly became priest from preost, therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors.

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

: *A* word for "priest is "hierus"... and it was specific to the priesthood of the Old Covenant (e.g. the Levites);

Wrong: Hierus is the uniquely distinctive word for priests, both Jewish and pagan. (Acts 14:13) and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.

Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people

And instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, which NT pastors are never described as doing in the life of the church, and instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2)

And which is what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9)

Also, Titus 1:5-7 shows that bishops and elders denote men in the same office: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position) Paul also called the elders together in Acts 20:17, and said that God has made them overseers. (Acts 20:28)

Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," 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."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], 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." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

In response to a query on this issue, the web site of International Standard Version (not my preferred translation) states,

No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew ZAQEN, which means "elder", and not priest. You can see the ZAQENIM described in Exodus 18:21-22 using some of the same equivalent Hebrew terms as Paul uses in the GK of 1&2 Timothy and Titus. Note that the ZAQENIM are NOT priests (i.e., from the tribe of Levi) but are rather men of distinctive maturity that qualifies them for ministerial roles among the people.

Therefore the NT equivalent of the ZAQENIM cannot be the Levitical priests. The Greek "presbyteros" (literally, the comparative of the Greek word for "old" and therefore translated as "one who is older") thus describes the character qualities of the "episkopos". The term "elder" would therefore appear to describe the character, while the term "overseer" (for that is the literal rendering of "episkopos") connotes the job description.

To sum up, far from obfuscating the meaning of "presbyteros", our rendering of "elder" most closely associates the original Greek term with its OT counterpart, the ZAQENIM. ...we would also question the fundamental assumption that you bring up in your last observation, i.e., that "the church has always had priests among its ordained clergy". We can find no documentation of that claim. ( http://isvbible.com/catacombs/elders.htm)

(As a side-note: I'm really getting the idea that Evangelicals don't really know what to do with the Orthodox Churches; the Orthodox believe almost all of what the Catholic Church teaches,

Rather, the schismatic (from Rome's perspective) Orthodox substantially differ with Rome , including no less than on ensured papal infallibility and power, from which the authority of RC bishops flows from.

And as it is RCs who have incessantly been posting promotional threads and posts here as the one true church , and as they represent the vast majority of Catholics (some RCs even say the EO are not Catholic) then therefore it is with them that you see our posts usually countering. Besides, using "RC" saves my stiff fingers from typing and making more inadvertent typos.

Getting to the backlog, here... 1 Peter 3:21-22: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."

Taking a sentence FRAGMENT and building a doctrine on it is a sure way to error.

Shall we examine that conclusion?

Try an experiment, for me. Go to any Catholic priest (or deacon), and ask them if Baptism's efficaciousness depends on washing DIRT from the person's BODY. Then, when they're done laughing, be prepared to explain why you came up with such a bizarre idea.

Where on EARTH do you get the idea that Catholic Baptism has anything, whatsoever (either in intent or in effect), to do with "removing dirt from the body"... or that this has any bearing on the true and intended effects?

Frankly, the only reason I can see for Protestants to say such a silly thing is that they're so very desperate to avoid the Catholic understanding of Baptism, and they grasp at the straw which is the "not as washing dirt from the body [etc.]" bit... no matter how absurd it sounds. "We must convict the Catholics under 1 Peter 3:21, and invalidate their view, at all costs!"

It's a bit like watching some Protestants clutching at the straw of John 6:63, when Jesus--after literally DOZENS of verses which hammer home the reality of His Body and Blood being REAL food and REAL drink (cf. John 6:55), and being REALLY eaten (albeit in a way which they couldn't yet accept or understand)--says, "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Loads of Protestants stand up and yell, "Aha!! That's the escape hatch! Jesus was speaking metaphorically!"... while violating almost all of their normal hermeneutics of "context", "preponderance of verses", etc. Desperation breeds ingenuity, even when it's ingeniously insane, it seems...

Any valid Baptism (let's just stick to Baptism of adults, for the sake of this example, lest we go off on a rabbit trail) requires that the recipient (the Catechumen) make an ACT OF FAITH; without faith, the water will simply get him wet. Once that's done, then baptism WASHES AWAY ALL SIN (including Original Sin), makes his soul pristine and clean, removes all cause for his conscience to rebuke him, and it's power to do this is completely and utterly dependent on Jesus Christ--His passion, death, resurrection, and ascension--and the merits which He earned on our behalf.

If I may paraphrase your comment: running off with half-baked ideas of what the Catholic Church teaches, without checking actual sources, is a sure way to error (and to straw men).

Peter says it's NOT water baptism.

Where, in the text, does he say that? I honestly can't see that quote, or anything which means it, anywhere.

(Sorry for the "universal ping"--too many disparate people to track down; I promise not to abuse it!) Okay... a few minutes to breathe (and a few hours to sleep). Sorry for the delay. Since there are numerous posts from numerous people about numerous aspects of this topic (i.e. priesthood, use of Greek lexicons, alleged "corruption" of the Church by the 4th or 5th century A.D., etc.), let me try to summarize what I see, so far. (If I miss any point that anyone wants addressed, please let me know; I'm trying to be efficient with time, and these sorts of discussions seem to expand to fill whatever available time an average person has! I'm not trying to dodge or neglect anyone's point, honest!) First: I'm a bit puzzled by the Protestant idea that any given Protestant can pick up their favorite English translation of the Bible--or even the Greek Scriptures (with an imperfect knowledge of the languages/dialects, the traditions, and the idioms of the time, and with uncertainty as to which Greek manuscript to follow... since there are inconsistencies between them)--look up what a contemporary lexicon says is the meaning of a given word in the Koine Greek (most defer to Strong's Concordance, I suspect--and his views were influenced by his Protestant background and by his strict adherence to the KJV), take it as absolutely certain, and then turn around and pronounce the Catholic Church to be wrong, heretical, unbiblical, and the rest of the standard anti-Catholic litany.

Then, when challenged with the writings of the Church Fathers, and when challenged with the translations of St. Jerome (who lived roughly 347-420 A.D., who translated those selfsame texts into Latin--over 1000 years before Luther was born, and over 1400 years before James Strong was born--and who was far closer to the culture and time in whcih the original texts were written, and who had access to manuscripts which have since perished), many such people reply with the bizarre rejoinder that, "Oh, well, obviously we can't trust THEM, since they were simply Catholic "shill" who were toeing the party line! And they're probably mostly forgeries, anyway!" Mm-hmm.

(Do I really need to explain how that's a fallacy? Excluding all sources of data which conflict with your preconceived notions really isn't logical... or honest, for that matter. This is especially the case with spurious comments such as, "Catholicism corrupted Christianity, and it did so almost completely by the 400's A.D." Really? And the "gates of Hades will not prevail" against the "pillar and foundation of the truth" bit? Forgive me if I'm skeptical of such claims... especially since the "evidence" usually consists of complaints that the early Catholics did not embrace Protestant assumptions such as "sola Scriptura", "sola fide", etc.)

Just to illustrate the point: I once had an ongoing debate with a Unitarian Pentecostal (a very odd species!), who rejected the Trinity and believed (in addition to believing that only those who speak in tongues can be saved) in the old heresy known as "modalism" (i.e. that there is only One Person in One God--and "Father", "Son", and "Spirit" are "masks" which the One God uses to interact with different people in different venues). This person insisted that the Catholic Church, corrupted by Constantine in the 4th century, "heretically" defined God as a Trinity (in deference to pagan gods--she even had references to three-headed statues of Egypt, etc.), while the "true Christian" writings were all destroyed and the "true Christians" were either killed or converted by force. She further argued that the Trinity is a direct violation of the ages-old belief in "One God", and that any efforts to "explain away" the Trinity as being somehow "Three Persons in One God" was obvious nonsense and Catholic "spin".

So... Protestants on this board: do you agree with the young modalist's conclusions? If not, WHY not? I ask, because a good many arguments against Catholic teaching are sounding AWFULLY SIMILAR to that sort of reasoning, especially with regard to "Catholic corruption of the early Church" (how on earth would anyone prove that?), "Catholic spin" (which can be said without basis, about anything), "it's not in the Bible" (e.g. it's true that, while the Bible strongly IMPLIES the Godhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, it never actually comes out and SAYS it explicitly... at least, not in a way that the modalists couldn't come up with a semi-plausible counter-interpretation), and the like.

Re: the definitions of "presbyteros" and "hiereus": I agree that the word "hiereus" is never used to describe what the Catholic Church identifies as "ordained priests"; the word "presbyteros" is used almost exclusively (with the caveat that bishops are, in fact, priests, in the Catholic understanding--so technically, "episkopos" can also refer to those who are priests--though not "merely" priests). But here's my point: what of it? The word "priest" in the Catholic Church was never meant to convey a meaning identical to the word "priest" in OT/Jewish understanding; they have similarities, but they also have striking differences. The Early Church used the word "presbyteros" to describe "ordained man [i.e. recipient of Holy Orders], delegate/assistant of the bishop"; and since the word "presbyteros" (which, yes, can also be translated "elder") was always rendered as "sacerdos" [i.e. "priest"] in every Latin Scripture text I can find (which date back to at least the 4th centure A.D., and which are much older than Webster's Dictionary, BTW! :) ), both in the OT and the NT. So... is anyone going to say that all these Latin texts are "simply corrupted by Romanism" and/or "obviously wrong"? If so, then how would one PROVE those sweeping claims to be anything other than self-sealing, circular, wishful-thinking nonsense?

Final note: some Protestants (even on this board) have presented some gross distortions of Catholicism, in efforts to attack it... which really does strike me as the "straw man" phenomenon. Is it too much to ask that opponents learn what the Church ACTUALLY teaches, as opposed to making up nonsensical claims and (for example) hiding them under a hypothetical additional claim that "this is what Catholics REALLY believe, given my interpretation of how they behave, etc."?

Bishop versus Overseer:

From the Intermediate Greek English Lexicon (IGEL):

ἐπί-σκοπος, ὁ, one who watches over, an overseer, guardian, Hom., Soph.:—of tutelary gods, Solon, etc.
2. c. dat., ἐπ. Τρώεσσι one set to watch them, Il.
3. a public officer, intendant, sent to the subject states, Ar.
4. a bishop, N.T.

Etymologically, epi is "over" or "upon" and skopeo is "look at," "observe", "watch," etc. So based on pure etymology, episkopos very naturally renders out as overseer, or guardian, or watcher, etc.

But pure etymology is hardly ever enough to make a good decision about what the word means in context, which is why you look for it in other settings that can illuminate its semantic value, such as its use here as a verb:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
(Hebrews 12:15)

"Looking diligently" is ἐπισκοπέω ("episkopeo"), and this gets us down into the guts of the word. This is not the idea of an overlord with tyrant powers, nor does it imply, either etymologically or semantically, any sort of pyramid of control, with one top banana over all. What it shows is the sense of one who is seriously invested in watching out for the well-being of his flock, leading by love.

Besides, there is no room at the top. The top person in the Ecclesia is Jesus. Everybody else is a peer. Though it is true everybody in Christ has different gifts:

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
(1 Corinthians 12:28)

So you can have teaching elders, or you can have administrative elders, or some other mix of abilities, but no matter by what gift it is expressed, these men are still guardians of the flock, watching them diligently, caring for them, etc.

Furthermore, the idea that there would be a limit of just one overseer per local flock is demonstrably untrue. Remember how Paul calls a meeting of the elders (presbuteros) of Ephesus:

And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
(Acts 20:17)

And then he calls them all overseers (episkopos):

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
(Acts 20:28)

In which case we see that elder and overseer designate the exact same plurality of individuals responsible for the Ephesian flock. This is evidence that the two titles are interchangeable, depending on the emphasis the writer is trying to make. In elder we have a person who through experience and wisdom has earned the respect of the flock as one whose example and teaching they should follow. An overseer is one who has a specific responsibility to carefully watch over that flock, according to the various perils a flock may face, whether predators from outside seeking to devour them, or needs from within, feeding and watering them, tending them when they are ill or in trouble. But there is no formal distinction or separation of roles as between elder versus overseer (though there are differences in gifts of the Spirit). That split in roles did not come till much later, and the only sources supporting it cannot claim divine inspiration.

Peace,

SR

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.