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.
.
I never contradict Paul; you simply buy into the false gospel of the dispensationalists that freely lie about every facet of the worship of Yeshua.
.
He is definitely not sexual, but very much masculine in his nature, as are all of his heavenly host.
well....yeah....and they have taught that for 2,015 years.....and most protestant denominations think that way too...
Really??? Then why do you guys demand this verse speaks of water baptism???
oh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Um....what? Where did Jesus say you must be born again of water?
John3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'…
The guy had been born once of the water/flesh and needed to be born again of the Spirit.
It has been shown untold times on these forums that scripture is NOT on your side.
Satan works in a myriad of ways my friend. Sometimes he takes people too far. Your Hebrew roots approach is as damaging as the Catholic approach.
Everything you give the Catholic church credit for is really the work of the Holy Spirit.
We don’t need the Catholic church when we have HIM.
And just where is the Holy Spirit in your religion and what does HE do in your economy? I don’t recall ever seeing you mention Him or attributing to Him any of His work. It all gets attributed to the Catholic church.
Just when you think you've read it all from a Catholic. One comes along and proves you wrong......
Numbers mean nothing.
Not even in Christianity or Catholicism.
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
So you would claim that God is powerless to protect us from ourselves? Really?
But never did they say take the dispute to the apostles or some hierarchical structure headed by some stand in for Christ.
Jesus told us to settle our disputes ourselves, but if someone wouldn’t listen, the FINAL step was to take it public and let the assembly decide.
He did NOT give blanket authority to the church nor did He command all believers to submit to Catholicism.
NO, it could not have been.
The Greek word oikonomia is used nine times in the New Testament. It means: "management of household affairs, stewardship, administration". Not once in all nine times that it is used could the word "distribution" fit.
Psalm 100:3 Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture.
"our Father which art in heaven"
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Psalm 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways and faithful in all he does.
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
I think it best to take Jesus word over your word.
While this may not be what you interpret Rome as teaching, yet as i had just provided , Cardinal Avery Dulles did claim ,
"People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."
Let's be precise in our terminology. What the Catholic Church is indeed claiming is that, to discover ALL of the revelation God has revealed to mankind, all of it, not just a portion, then it is NOW necessary to have an infallible magisterium.
What I said before isn't inconsistent with this, as it is indeed possible for God to have:
A. Revealed Himself to whomever He chose in the OT, to fulfill his plan of Salvation for mankind, through mankind.
B. While He was here on Earth, in the flesh, obviously an "infallible magisterium" was NOT required since He was here. He was the source of infallibility then, since He is, even just by definition "infallible"
C. Now that He has ascended to heaven, and has revealed all there is to reveal to mankind (there is no more revelation to receive, the faith was "deposited" with the Apostles at Pentecost), *now* there exists a need for a magisterium to "know all things there is to know" about God, and thus we have statements like Cardinal Dulles'.
I hope this clarifies things.
What you need to provide is the basis for the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
First of all, it's "unscriptural" in your opinion. You (among others) have been provided ample Scriptural evidence for the establishment of a visible Church government. You have simply rejected it, claiming it's unscriptural, because it contradicts Scripture elsewhere. Again, in your opinion.
The first part of your request (namely "provide...the basis for the NOVEL...premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility...", emphasis added) is reasonable however, and that basis is given, I believe, in post 34. I have not seen anyone refute the logic there in this thread. If you would like to have a go at it feel free.
Hebrew roots people will be observing shavuot/Pentecost with Christians so they are not immune .
Hebrew rots and the other synagogue of Satan, Judaism, follow Rome just like the other religions.
Today is a ‘holy sabbath’ day for them because Rome says so..
On our Father’s calendar , today is His 5th Work Day, the 13th day of His month.
This coming pope Gregory ‘moon day’ will be the 7th Day Sabbath, the 15th Day of His month.
Interestingly, it is a day marked in Exodus 16.. the ‘next day’, 16th began the manna from heaven...
Who knew Israel had their own journey of 30/60/100 just like the Savior gave us those ‘folds’ in His parable of the sower!
After 30 days of their deliverance, manna from heaven.
After 60 days of their deliverance, thunder of His voice delivering His Law.
After 100 days of their deliverance, Moses comes down with the tables of the Covenant, written by His finger and sealed with His name, title and territory.
None of that can be ‘seen’ without first rejecting Rome’s calendar.
Because the synagogue of Satan uses another synagogue of Satan (Rome) they both are two peas in a pod..
Again, that is why I thank Him for the freedom He gave me... Jews and Hebrew roots are as enslaved.. they just reject some of Rome while still using Rome to set their work and worship lives too..
Those ‘postponement’ rules for His Feasts occur because Saturn’s day is their pope approved sabbath.
Jews moved up yom Kippur, tabernacles and passover these past seasons because of Rome’s Saturn’s day..
Chiun and repham are referenced against Israel in prophecy and study would lead to it being ‘Saturn’ worship..
That isn’t an accident..
The whole world is a counterfeit. Christendom gets its own ‘birthday’ wrong. Why would they care when He was really born either?
>>when Jesus said you must be born again of water and the Spirit<<
Um....what? Where did Jesus say you must be born again of water?
.
“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” are not Yeshua’s words.
Those are always modifications of the original text, wherever they occur. Those changes were made in the 4th century, and never were they found in the earliest MS.
Most honest and knowledgeable scholars attribute them to Eusebius, who was Constantine’s available sycophant.
.
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.