Of course Gal 2:11 is not about Papal infallibility. There is no mention of the Pope in the Bible. It is a man-made term.
Which historical version of the Catholic Church is infallibly correct?
- Thread starter Alfred Persson
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
A man-made term like Incarnation or Trinity. They are not in the Bible either - so obviously meaningless.
The misimpression that was corrected pertained to modern popes being criticized, not any agreement Peter didn't prove by his actions he was not infallible.
Actions speak louder than words. Peter's hypocrisy taught moral error that Paul condemned as "wrong".
And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
(Gal. 2:11 New American Bible)
To illustrate actions speak louder than words: In "Mars Attacks" (1996) the Martians would say "We come in peace" while they were blasting their ray guns at humans, killing them. What spoke louder, their words or their actions? Actions obviously.
If Paul didn't rebuke Peter's error in faith and morals, it would have taken root in the church just as certainly had he taught it from the pulpit.
Oh, you're so clever -- not. There are many terms that are not in the Bible, but the meanings are clearly there. People understand the term "incarnation": when God became human. And because the Godhead exists in three forms it is referred to as the trinity. You know this, so don't be nonsensical.
The point is this: there is no office of the Pope in Scripture. You know it, as does everyone else. Your sophistry doesn't mean a thing regarding God's truth.
I was not being clever. I just overestimated you.
I thought that when you said "There is no mention of the Pope in the Bible"I thought you actually meant that rather than there was no mention of the office of Pope in the Bible.
Of course the latter (the office of Pope) is in the Bible but you just refuse to recognise it.
See:
The Chair of Peter
The Primacy of Peter
The Pope – The Vicar of Christ
Peter The Rock
Last edited:
The post you referred to clearly explained the meaning of "papal infallibility".
Gal 2:11 was about Peter's actions not his dogmatic teaching.
He was not acting "as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals."
We've been through this before.
a) Peter was called "Satan" by Jesus. Jesus never called any other person by that name.
b) After saying that Cephas was the rock in which He would build His church, Jesus called him a "stumbling block", an obvious contrast. You and other Catholics conveniently leave out these two things.
c) Your "rock" denied even knowing Jesus three times.
d) He was designated as the apostle to the Jews by the church elders in Jerusalem, nothing more.
Again, there is no mention of a Pope in the Bible. It is a made-up term of the Catholic church.
And Peter was a deeply flawed man.
Galatians 2:11-14, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
He most certainly was not acting "as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals." He was clearly a hypocrite who sought men's favor.
Yes we've been through it all before, So no point in correcting you yet again.
No mention of the word "Pope" but the office of the Pope is there.
I gave you the links but you just refuse to recognise it.
No, he wasn't a deeply flawed man. He had his faults but calling him deeply flawed is a gross exaggeration.
Good so there is some,thing we agree on.
In this instance Peter was not "as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals."So you agree that Alfred Persson's claim about infallibility are false.
None of us, including all your popes, would be a pimple on Peter's .ss. But as an apostle, he never was "out of the chair", everything he did or said had authority. Unlike your fallible popes, every act and word was definitive, because he was one of the Twelve apostles.
Jesus called him "Satan". That isn't deeply flawed to you? It certainly was to Jesus.
In your opinion.
But no evidence provided for it.
You lost the argument. Now you are just flailing around trying to pretend you haven't.
Last edited:
Jesus knew all Peter's faults and that he would deny him yet he appointed him as leader of the apostles, called him the rock on which he (Jesus) would build his Church, gave him the keys to the kingdom and (singly) gave him the power to bind and loose.
After his resurrection Jesus told him to strengthen his brothers. feed his lambs and take care of his sheep. To no other person did he say that.
Whatever faults Peter had shown, Jesus forgave him,
Apparently you cannot.
I guess that you can rationalize anything, including who Peter actually was. Again, Jesus called Peter "Satan", called him a "stumbling block" (as opposed to a solid rock), and Paul called him a hypocrite. He was appointed the apostle to the Jews (only).
You will never accept the truth about Peter, and will clearly rationalize who he actually was. The Catholic church has made this deeply flawed hypocrite into some legendary figure. He is mentioned far more than Jesus in your posts, which clearly indicates something seriously wrong.
I am not going to continue this discussion, as clearly you and most Catholics will never accept the truth.
Sola scriptura! Sola fide! Sola gratia! Solus Christus!!! Soli Deo Gloria!!!
I won the argument with the simple premise: "Actions speak louder than words". As one of the Twelve, Peter was never "out of the chair", everything he did and said taught morals and doctrine. He was wrong, as this Catholic approved translation says---therefore not infallible:
And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong (Gal. 2:11 NAB)
Peter was just a man, deeply flawed, confused, and hypocritical. Catholics exalt him for no valid reason. Since Jesus called him "Satan", exalting him is beyond crazy!
Yes, I absolutely believe the same version of Catholicism as St. Augustine.
Concluding his sermon against Pelagianism, the Doctor said:
"My brethren, be of one mind with me. Wheresoever you find such men do not hide them, have no perverse pity. Refute those who contradict, and bring to us those who resist. For already two Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See [Rome] concerning this matter, and rescripts have come from thence. The case is concluded; would that the error would soon cease also. (Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error.) - St. Augustine, 131:10, preached in Carthage on Sunday, Sept. 23, 417 A.D.
Again refuting Pelagius, the Doctor exempts Mary from sin:
“…Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" - St. Augustine, On Nature and Grace, Chapter 42 (36)
I always think it rather humorous when Protestant try to lay claim to St. Augustine. But, I guess other than believing in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ, the efficacy of the Sacraments, the ordained episcopate, priesthood and diaconate, Apostolic succession as necessary to safeguard the faith and valid Sacraments, the importance of monastic life, the bishop of Rome as the authority over the Church universal, you could say St. Augustine was a Protestant.
Last edited:
Peter, as for all Popes, can only make infallible pronouncement on matters of faith and morals under very special conditions.
Your attempt to portray Peter as always infallible in actions and statements is totally false.
You are totally ignoring the points I made about Peter.
Jesus knew all Peter's faults and that he would deny him yet he appointed him as leader of the apostles, called him the rock on which he (Jesus) would build his Church, gave him the keys to the kingdom and (singly) gave him the power to bind and loose.
After his resurrection Jesus told him to strengthen his brothers. feed his lambs and take care of his sheep. To no other person did he say that.
Whatever faults Peter had shown, Jesus forgave him,
Apparently you cannot.