Martignoni commits the logical fallacy of alleged certainty aka assuming the conclusion. There is no explicit Scriptural support for 1) priestly absolution for sins or 2) papal definition and promulgation of infallible and binding dogma. Acts 13:38 and other Scriptures teach that forgiveness of sins is through the preaching of the Gospel:

“Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.”

John Martignoni
Uhmm...no, I did not commit the "logical fallacy of alleged certainty aka assuming the conclusion".  Here he goes, trying to make the chapter about the "priestly absolution of sins" and papal infallibility, instead of what it is actually about - the lack of authoritative binding and loosing within Protestantism. 

One thing to notice, though, is that he says, "There is no EXPLICIT Scriptural support for priestly forgiveness of sins."  I.e., he's kinda admitting that there is at least implicit Scriptural support for priestly forgiveness of sins and I would argue it is, in fact, fairly explicit.  I mean, it's hard to ignore James 5:16.  After telling the folks to call for the "elders" - the priests/bishops - James commands that the people confess their sins to one another.  Then, Matt 9:8 says that the authority on earth to forgive sins was given to "men" - plural.  And the context there is not church discipline...it's the forgiveness of sins against God.  And, of course, John 20:21-23 where Jesus EXPLICITLY gives the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins.  It seems to me that he is the one who has committed the "logical fallacy of alleged certainty aka assuming the conclusion"!

And look at how he interprets Acts 13:38!  "Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you."  He interprets that to mean that people's sins are forgiven by having the gospel preached to them.  Is that what he considers "explicit Scriptural support"?  Really?!  What Acts 13:38 is saying is that the disciples were preaching to people that Jesus died for their sins and that through Him you can obtain forgiveness of sin.  Their sins were not forgiven merely by the fact that people had preached to them about Jesus and the forgiveness of sins.

Tom ExCatholic4Christ
There is not the slightest mention in the Bible of a pope declaring infallible dogma. Martignoni deceives his readers by failing to mention that many conservative and traditionalist Catholics (including those at EWTN, the publisher of this book) view the current pope Francis as, at best, a bad pope, and at worst a heretic.

John Martignoni
Actually, there is.  In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter - the 1st Pope - spoke, and all were silent.  What did Peter say?  That the prescripts of the old law - circumcision, keeping kosher, animal sacrifices, etc. - are, essentially, no longer required.  Furthermore, this decision of Peter's, and the Council of Jerusalem as a whole, is said to be the decision of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).  When the Holy Spirit speaks, folks, that's dogma. 

Notice, though, the deflection on his part once again, this time in regard to Pope Francis.  Whether what he is saying about Traditionalist Catholics and their views on Pope Francis is true or not, it is absolutely irrelevant to the context of this chapter and to the lack of authority within Protestantism that prevents any Protestant from being able to wield the binding and loosing authority given to the church by God.  He cannot positively defend Protestantism, so he has to attack Catholicism instead.  Furthermore, what he says here highlights, once again, his lack of understanding of Catholic teaching, in particular, on papal infallibility. 

Tom ExCatholic4Christ
It appears from the context of Matthew 16:19 in connection with Matthew 18:15-18 that the binding and loosing refers to church discipline. John MacArthur states in his commentary:

16:19 the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

These represent authority, and here Christ gives Peter (and by extension all other believers) authority to declare what is bound or loosed in heaven. This echoes the promise of John 20:23, where Christ gives the disciples authority to forgive or retain the sins of people. All these actions must be understood in the context of Matthew 18:15-17, in which Christ lays out specific instructions for dealing with sin in the church.¹

John Martignoni
It "appears" from the context of Matthew 16:19 that binding and loosing refers to church discipline?  "Appears?!"  Again, really?! Sorry, but it doesn't "appear" that way to me.  And, I guess neither MacArthur or Tom ExCatholic4Christ has ever read the parallel passage from Isaiah 22:15-24, about how Eliakim will be the steward over the household of the king (which in the New Testament is the church) and will be like a "father" (aka papa aka pope) to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.  It "appears" - always look for this kind of non-definitive language - it's very uncertain language yet they try to pass off what they're saying as if it's infallible.

And I love his, apparently, infallible source - John MacArthur (famous anti-Catholic preacher) - who says that, while the keys of the kingdom do indeed represent authority, that this authority was given to Peter "(and by extension all other believers)"!  Uhhmm...where does the Bible say that?  No!  The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, and Peter alone.  But, no...not according to MacArthur or to Tom ExCatholic4Christ.  So, apparently then, all believers have the authority to bind and loose on earth what is then bound and loosed in Heaven, right?  Which, by extension, makes "all believers" infallible!  Isn't that awesome!  I mean, the power to bind and loose is backed up by God's authority, and God is infallible.  But, of course, God is only binding and loosing in Heaven disciplinary matters that are taking place in the church here on earth, nothing more.  So, then, decisions regarding church disciplinary matters are infallible - since they have God's authority behind them - but decisions regarding doctrine and dogma are not?  How ridiculous is that! 

Tom ExCatholic4Christ
Rome elevated its spurious sacred oral traditions and teaching magisterium as being co-equal with Scripture. By untethering itself from the authority of Scripture, Rome fabricated its doctrines of auricular confession to priests and papal infallibility. Rome’s authority is false. The Bible, God’s Holy Word, is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. The current crisis within the RCC over pope Francis is more than enough evidence that Montignoni’a claims and boasts are fallacious.

My Comments
No, Rome has never "elevated" the Magisterium to being "co-equal with Scripture".  That is a flat out lie.  This time I think this is due not so much to ignorance as it is to malice.  This guy hates the Catholic Church and, I believe, will do or say anything, no matter how false it is, to denigrate the Church.  Since he doesn't have to adhere to those pesky Commandments in order to be saved, then that whole thing about "Thou shalt not bear false witness," doesn't bother him at all. 

And, again, the "current crisis" with Pope Francis has no bearing at all on any of the arguments I made in Chapter 3 of my book. In other words, he is being consistent in his pattern of "rebuttal" of each of the chapters of my book so far.  He starts off each rebuttal by mentioning what the chapter is about, and then completely ignores, and thus fails to respond to, any of the arguments I make or questions that I ask in the chapter.  He fails to actually defend Protestantism.  Instead, he ignores and deflects by attacking Catholicism. He seems to think that by "proving" Catholicism wrong, he is thus "proving" Protestantism right.  Sorry, but it doesn't quite work that way.