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.

From Wiki...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes

Popes sexually active after receiving Holy Orders

Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had three illegitimate daughters, one of whom was Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election as pope, but twelve years after his enthronement as Bishop of Lausanne).[17] The schismatic Conciliabulum of Pisa, which sought to depose him in 1511, accused him of being a “sodomite covered with shameful ulcers.” [18]

Pope Paul III (1534–1549) who, according to some sources, held off ordination in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini after his appointment as Cadinal-Deacon of Santi Cosimo and Damiano. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy. He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.[19][20]

Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) received the ecclesiastical tonsure in Bologna in June 1539, but subsequently had an affair with Maddalena Fulchini which resulted in the birth of a son, Giacomo Boncompagni, in 1548. Giacomo remained illegitimate but his father later appointed him Gonfalonier of the Church, governor of the Castel Sant’Angelo, as well as governor of Fermo.[21][22]

Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), as a young prelate was suspected of having had a liaison with the wife of the soldier of Swiss Guard and as nuncio in Germany allegedly fathered three illegitimate children.[23]

Popes accused of being sexually active during pontificate

Pope Sergius III (904–911) was accused by his opponents of being the illegitimate father of Pope John XI by Marozia.[24] These accusations are found in Liutprand of Cremona’s Antapodosis,[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.[26][27][28] The accusations are disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894–966): John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I, so John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque emphasizes that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being “prone to exaggeration” while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[29]

Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis.[30][31](See also Saeculum obscurum)

Pope John XII (955–963) was accused by his adversaries of adultery and incest.[32][33] The monk Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he “liked to have a collection of women”. According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] “they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse.” According to E. R. Chamberlin, John XII was “a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held”.[34] Some sources report that he was rumoured to have died 8 days after being stricken by paralysis while in the act of adultery,[32] others that he was killed by the jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery.[35][36][37][38] (See also Saeculum obscurum)

Pope Benedict IX (1032– became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048).[39] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries.”[40][41] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to “his rapes... and other unspeakable acts.”[42] His life prompted Saint Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against illicit sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[43] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[44]

Pope Paul II (1464–1471) is popularly thought to have died due to indigestion arising from eating melon in excess,[45][46] though a rumour was spread by his detractors that he died while engaging in sodomy.[47]

Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484). According to the published chronicle of the Italian historian Stefano Infessura, “Diary of the City of Rome”, Sixtus was a “lover of boys and sodomites” - awarding benefices and bishoprics in return for sexual favours, and nominating a number of young men as cardinals; some of whom were celebrated for their good looks.[48][49][50] However, Infessura had partisan allegiances to the Colonna and so is not considered to be always reliable or impartial.[51]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei while still a priest, but before he became pope; and by her had his illegitimate children Cesare Borgia, Giovanni Borgia, Gioffre Borgia, and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, and she gave birth to a daughter (Laura) while Alexander was in his 60s and reigning as pope.[52] Alexander fathered at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children, and did much to promote his family’s interests - using his offspring to build alliances with a number of important dynasties.[53] He appointed Giovanni Borgia as Captain General of the Church, and made Cesare a Cardinal of the Church - also creating independent duchies for each of them out of papal lands.

Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was accused, after his death, of homosexuality (Francesco Guicciardini and Paolo Giovio). It has been suggested he may have had ulterior motives in offering preferment to Marcantonio Flaminio.[54]

Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope’s bed.[55]

You guys really have no idea on the history of the RCC. You know....before you spout off on a topic you apparently do not have an understanding about, you might want to do some research before you're made to look foolish.

You really expect to be taken seriously, after posting sundry drivel like this? You supposedly decry "Catholic lies", and then turn around to throw out a nutty, irrational accusation which is more worthy of Jerry Springer that it's worthy of the mouth of a Christian?

Already in the sixth century, Emperor Justinian realized the danger of the property of the Church being alienated through the inheritance of priests’ children who were themselves not-priests. Thus he issued decrees which were the first steps towards obligatory celibate priesthood. He demanded that «a person who had children could not be a bishop, and a married cleric must live with his wife as with a sister» (cf J.M. Ford, ‘Celibacy’ in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology). In fact, Emperor Justinian was continuing, perhaps in a more diplomatic way, the efforts already visible during the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) to try to make celibacy obligatory among clerics.

The Gregorian reforms in the eleventh century on this question of priestly celibacy can also be partly understood in the same economic perspective. The reforms were intended not only to encourage the semi-monastic standard and spirit among the clergy but also, and probably mainly, to prevent priests from being too absorbed in the feudal system with its central concern of material possessions.

There is no doubt that the question of material possession and the economic well-being of priests has always played some role in the maintenance of the institution of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church. It is not rare in our ecumenical dealings with the Protestant brothers to hear them speak approvingly of the Catholic Church’s maintenance of priestly celibacy. And their main reason for this is that priestly celibacy enables an economically better state for the Roman Catholic priest.http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_prob_en.html

Now....who is posting "sundry drivel like this".....but the VATICAN ITSELF????

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.