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.
And as LOT of them were caught up in CATHOLIC churches teaching gross ERROR!!!
Thanks; John; for informing us about them in the first part of Revelation...
Come on in boys; the water’s FINE!
—Delmar
Oh?
Were you using the MORMON database?
Then you cannot deny the Mormon their claims regarding Christ.
Nor could you deny the Muslim their claims regarding Christ.
See what happens when you take a text and don't interpret it according to the rest of Scripture? Lots of bad teaching.
LOL. Good Limerick. Can you dream up one about false religions? Like, there once was an angel Moroni...........
Just another lie from the Roman church ... No THEY did not write the scriptures.. The scriptures were written at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by and for the Church of Jesus Christ ...there was no Roman Catholic church as they were penned..
LOL....
‘Do this in remembrance of Me’ means ‘do this and believe it is god-ordained cannibalism so the Jews won’t join in because they know God calls cannibalism an abomination’, eh?
Amen
Origen instituted infant baptism in 220AD. Not all things Catholic apologists claim are true ... unless we apply their ‘infallability’ regime of course.
The funny thing about the Holy Spirit is He brings to your mind the scripture for those everyday situations .. Ps 119.11 Your word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
The question is...Is Jesus bound to follow the commands of a priest and STAY where He is put ..even if he is being put in poop, or burned; or walked on ...Remember the patents? Poor jesus might fall to the floor..
And so now in this situation who is God ? Jesus or the priest ?
When I was a catholic, I don't think I heard anyone come right out and say sex was evil. I thought it was implied, however. Maybe you can attest to that. I DO remember one priest in religion class say two things. He said huge numbers of people were going to Hell EVERYDAY. I believe that is true. He said the reason people were going to Hell in such large numbers, was because of the mortal sin of sexual impurity. That is false, of course. So, in his mind at least, it looked like he was saying sex was evil. Maybe that is not exactly what he meant, but that is the idea we got.
Now, being as we all know that Mary and Joseph were not Catholics, I think, because they had a bunch of kids, that Mary and Joseph must have enjoyed sex. Oh horror of horrors. 😱🙈 The nerve of Mary and Joseph, enjoying the gift God gave to the human race.
..See how nice Rome is ?? We are separated brethren now ...separated brethren that to this day Rome curses to hell ..
One more time terycarl ..the scriptures belong to and were written by the NT church of Jesus Christ not Rome
Think about it .. if Rome had written it it would have masses in it, NT Priests in it, confessions in it, vestments in it, mary's assumption in it, prayer to the physically dead saints ..etc ...etc...
That is catholic with a small c
Where to begin on this one... so little time ...
terycarl...It might be good to actually look at a scripture before quoting it.. lets look at it
Douay-Rheims Bible
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.(John 21:25)
The scripture is addressing things He did ..not "accomplishments", there is NO RECORD ANYWHERE that Jesus baptized anyone in fact the scriptures testify otherwise
Douay-Rheims Bible
When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples, and baptizeth more than John 2(Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,) 3He left Judea, and went again into Galilee. 4And he was of necessity to pass through Samaria..(John 4:)
Well no doubt the love sex...but they tend to be 2 child families theses day , which is why RC schools are closing... Muslims win the baby race today..
And yet the *church* prohibits sex for the least little reason and prohibits priests and nuns from having all those kids and glorifies virginity and celibacy even within marriage
Whats interesting is Rome used to have married priests (and popes) ..but the issue of priests leaving church property to their wives and children did not make Rome happy, so the "tradition" of "celibate " priests...began
Now keep in mind...only nuns take a vow of "chastity "...(no sex) ..priests on the other hand take a vow of "celibacy " ( no marriage) ..so there is no vow stopping a mistress or male partner ..just no legal tie that would allow inheritance .
GREAT OBSERVATION
Sorry, everyone... really swamped, over here. I’ll try to write when I can.
Interesting, that......
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.