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.
Actually Rome has massively misread the scriptures, cherry picked passages from the church fathers and developed a false historical narrative.. and Rome gets away with it because their members have been brain washed to believe every thing Rome does is infallible ...
Good.. glad to hear that .. Only 400 years of biblical censorship
What authority do you have to make this claim?
You told me that all Protestants (based on their possession of Bibles and Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura) agree on a handful of doctrines.
This isn't one of the doctrines on your list, IIRC.
So how can be certain that your claim is true?
Is your interpretation of Scripture infallible?
What authority do you have to make this claim? -wishes to be a saint, but doesn't have the right credentials, so becomes a usurper, like Roman Catholicism, in general!!
What authority do you have to make DENY this claim?
The Roman cult denies lay members using apologetics...
She's dead, tom!
A rose by any other name...
The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called "evangelists" in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or "elders." In fact, the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).
In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)
Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos ("servant" or "minister"; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.
Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a "fellow elder," [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.
The term for bishop, episcopos ("overseer"), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.
Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and "deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.
As the following quotations illustrate, the early Church Fathers recognized all three offices and regarded them as essential to the Church’s structure. Especially significant are the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who traveled from his home city to Rome, where he was executed around A.D. 110. On the way he wrote letters to the churches he passed. Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius said, a group cannot be called a church.
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH[who was appointed as Bishop of Antioch by Peter himself]
________________________________________________________________________
"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest" (ibid., 6:1).
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).
"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire" (Letter to the Trallians 2:1–3 [A.D. 110]).
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him" (ibid., 3:1–2).
"He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience" (ibid., 7:2).
"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).
So you admit that Rnmomof7 has no greater authority than anyone else to interpret Scripture? She has already admitted this herself.
And you both assert that the Catholic Church has no binding teaching authority.
You may not be aware of the following arguments regarding the binding teaching authority of the Church. Many anti-Catholics simply pass over these facts.
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --JesusHow do you interpret this passage?
Does this mean that Christ's Church has no disciplinary authority?
Or does you mean that Christ's Church has no doctrinal authority?
St. Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
On the level of simple logic, Christ's act of establishing a Church, lacking the authority to teach doctrine with absolute certainty down through the ages, would make His act of establishing a Church void and meaningless --an impossibility.
Revelation confirms this fact:
Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age." --Jesus addressing the ApostlesThis makes sense, because Jesus gives the Apostles together, and Peter, individually, the power to "bind and loose.""Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptising... and teaching them everything I have commanded you." --Jesus to the Apostles
What does this mean?
Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority.[1] The Targum to a particular Psalm[2] implies that these actions were considered to be as effectual as the spell of an enchanter.[1]The poseks had, by virtue of their ordination, the power of deciding disputes relating to Jewish law.[1] Hence the difference between the two main schools of thought in early classical Judaism were summed up by the phrase the school of Shammai binds; the school of Hillel looses.[1]
--Wikipedia
+ + +
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
In the New Testament.
In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers"; that is, "loose them," as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. ("Clementine Homilies," Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: "I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church." Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the "clavis ordinis," "the key-power of the Church."
+ + +
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." --Jesus
Sure I do...an animal (humans included) which sports a penis is a member of the male sex....an animal which does not, but which has an internal organ referred to as a vagina is a member of the female sex......do you have any harder questions concerning sexual identification????
Do you have a mirror?? Could be very handy in a quiz like this.
Nope, that isn't so...In my house there are probably 6 bibles, (Catholic) of various values and from various periods of time....I have mine from when I was a student in a CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL....we have a nice leather bound Bible on a very nice Maahogany stand and some smaller but very thick versions that we got somewhere...Our local Catholic book store sells a lot of Bibles and since I was in school in the 1950's, I have NEVER heard of Catholics not being URGED to own and read the bible.
The priest orders Christ to do nothing...Christ promised that He would be there when He instutited the Sacrament of the Eucharist....THIS IS MY BODY.....remember that part???
The Tabernacle being locked is a protection anainst evil non Catholics who might break into the church and attempt to steal the GOLD vessels which contain the consecrated bread and wine....
The Catholic church wrote in the Bible where Jesus could pass through walls and stuff after His resurrection so He can easily get out of the little tabernacle if He wants to......He doesn't!!
By the same authority that you have to deny it.. ARE YOU INFALLIBLE??
" In reality, the term itself is not common in Jewish writings. It most likely refers to a seat in the synagogue from which the law (i.e., the writings of Moses and the prophets) was read.
the authority of "Moses' seat" would have been primarily magisterial, not doctrinal. Lightfoot notes this by saying, "This is to be understood rather of the *legislative seat* (or chair), than of the merely *doctrinal:* and Christ here asserts the authority of the magistrate, and persuadeth to obey him in lawful things" (Ibid, p. 289). Moses acted as judge in Israel, and the priesthood maintained that role in the theocracy.
http://vintage.aomin.org/Palm%20response.html
As an aside, it should be noted that this passage in Matt. 23:2-3 has also been misapplied by the Roman Catholic Church to lend support to their false doctrine that the Pope sits in the chair of Peter as his successor, just as they suggest the scribes and Pharisees sat in the chair of Moses. With this right of succession came, it is claimed, the right to speak "from the chair" with the same authority. Indeed, in the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition (which is a Catholic version), Matthew 23:2 is translated: "The scribes and the Pharisees have succeeded Moses as teachers." This is far more interpretation than translation. To assume Jesus was here affirming such a right to such a group as the scribes and Pharisees (much less, by extension, to the Pope), whom He rebuked repeatedly for their actions, attitudes and teachings, is to woefully misunderstand and misapply the passage in question.
Yes, the scribes and Pharisees "have seated themselves" [NASB] in the seat of Moses. That was a fact, and Jesus acknowledged their practice. They were indeed doing this. Many of these people were also casting off their wives. Jesus acknowledged that fact, as well. Acknowledging a reality, however, is not the same as affirming a right. When Jesus stated what the scribes and Pharisees were doing, He merely confirmed that which was taking place. This one can do without applauding the action itself. Having said all of this, most scholars feel that "Jesus applies the expression metaphorically here" [Dr. Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 541]. "The Jews spoke of the teacher's seat as we speak of a professor's chair" [Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. 1, p. 278]. Many universities, for example, have a "Bible Chair" with a Chairman of the department. The idea behind the "chair," then, is that it signifies the authority to teach and lead. "By 'the seat of Moses' we are to understand authority to teach the law" [Adam Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, vol. 5, p. 217]. It had long been the custom of the Jewish teachers to sit as they taught from the Law and the Prophets, but to stand as they read from these works [see: Luke 4:16, 20-21]. Therefore, "the expression is a metaphor referring to the fact that the Pharisees had assumed the role of being the Law's interpreters" [Noel S. Rabbinowitz, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, September, 2003].
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx284.htm
Just remember Thomas everything you posted is your own fallible opinion..with no more authority than I have.. it is YOPO
How many of them have you read through?
I was in grade school in the 50's.. Catholic grade school...never a word about reading the bible.. all we did was memorize the catechism
OSAS.....O.K.....I guess that there is no need now for all this church sturr....what's the point of keeping holy the sabbath if we are all already saved....feeding the poor....humbug, I am saved, why give my money to some derelict???
Don't steal, why not, you have some neat stuff that I'd like to own and I'm saved so sin is of no consequence to me...Heaven is just waiting for me to get there....
Lots of luck with that.
Think about that for a minute..jesus need a box with a lock to PROTECT HIM...he was ordered into that bread and he just could not leave it even if he wanted to..so we have to lock HIM UP TO PROTECT HIM..
THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF FOOLISHNESS.
The Catholic church wrote in the Bible where Jesus could pass through walls and stuff after His resurrection so He can easily get out of the little tabernacle if He wants to......He doesn't!!
The bible predates Romanism... but that aside.. again read what you wrote.. just foolish superstition..
Some evil man comes in and wants to throw christ into a fire..but he wants to stay in that cracker ...THINK
All Catholics know, I know, and you know, that it doesn't work that way....never has.
Valid reception of the Sacrament of reconciliation, instituted by Christ, requires verbal confession, penance, and a firm intention and actual attempt to avoid sin and the near occasion of sin....withour that sincerity to reform your life and actions...you just wasted your time and that of the priest. A sense of TRUE CONTRITION is necessary for the Sacrament of penance to be valid.
You were Baptized as an infant in the Catholic church....that pretty much took care of the whole Baptism requirement....and it was a lot more than 6 months earlier.
Well said.
All that does is get the child wet and make the parents fell good.
There are no recorded instances of infant baptism in the NT.
And the baptism is not what saves you....it's the faith in Jesus that saves you. Baptism is being obedient in following His example of being baptized.
How do you know? I doubt you were there. I was too young to know if my parents did that or not. I was too young to make a decision for Christ, and if I had a choice about it, I would have told them not to do me like that, because I did not want any fake indelible mark on my soul. Ders too many fake indelible marks goin on out der. 😎 Besides, judging from the time of year, it was cold, and all they succeeded in doing, was make me shiver. 😂🇵🇭 I didn't like being in Vietnam much, but it was a beautiful thing, to be baptized in the swimming at Bien Hoa Air Base. Everyone should try it. 😇
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.