Which historical version of the Catholic Church is infallibly correct?

[Mungo]

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!

You two protestants ought to get together and sort out your attitudes to Peter.
For Alfred Persson Peter can do nothing wrong.
For jaybo Peter can do nothing right.

But that is typical of Protestantism; 40,000 denominations, sects, cults and one Pastor churches (+ all the "non-denominational" individuals) all proclaiming contradictory doctrines.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You two protestants ought to get together and sort out your attitudes to Peter.
For Alfred Persson Peter can do nothing wrong.
For jaybo Peter can do nothing right.

But that is typical of Protestantism; 40,000 denominations, sects, cults and one Pastor churches (+ all the "non-denominational" individuals) all proclaiming contradictory doctrines.

A complete misread of my statement "Peter was wrong."

Evidently, you experienced cognitive dissonance so that "Peter was wrong" became "Peter was right."

Cognitive dissonance occurs when facts or logic challenge a cherished emotionally held belief. Its often accompanied by ridicule of the "speaker of truth" to deflect from the facts or logic to protect the emotional fiction that is preferred.


cognitive dissonance, the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in people is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: they reject, explain away, or avoid the new information; persuade themselves that no conflict really exists; reconcile the differences; or resort to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in their conceptions of the world and of themselves. The concept was developed in the 1950s by American psychologist Leon Festinger and became a major point of discussion and research. -Encyclopaedia Britannica

 

[Mungo]

A complete misread of my statement "Peter was wrong."

Evidently, you experienced cognitive dissonance so that "Peter was wrong" became "Peter was right."

Cognitive dissonance occurs when facts or logic challenge a cherished emotionally held belief. Its often accompanied by ridicule of the "speaker of truth" to deflect from the facts or logic to protect the emotional fiction that is preferred.


cognitive dissonance, the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in people is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: they reject, explain away, or avoid the new information; persuade themselves that no conflict really exists; reconcile the differences; or resort to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in their conceptions of the world and of themselves. The concept was developed in the 1950s by American psychologist Leon Festinger and became a major point of discussion and research. -Encyclopaedia Britannica

 

[Alfred Persson]

Critical thinkers can break cognitive dissonance once they are aware, others continue to deflect from the contradiction their belief posits against reality.

I cited NAB Catholic Translation that "Peter was wrong" in deed, as an apostle "always in the chair" as it were, his DEEDS speak louder than mere words.

And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong (Gal. 2:11 NAB)

As an apostle, both Peter's deeds and words were always informative, a teaching moment. Christians would pay both particular and specially intense heed. He was no mere bishop or priest. He was one of the Twelve, perhaps the most prominent among them.

The delusion I claimed "Peter did no wrong" is clear cognitive dissonance on your part.

I extrapolate that to the entire Catholic belief. You have a bible in which "modern Catholicism" is contradicted on many levels, yet Catholic apologists insist Catholicism is steeped in scripture. That delusion exhibits extreme cognitive dissonance.

 

[jaybo]

Critical thinkers can break cognitive dissonance once they are aware, others continue to deflect from the contradiction their belief posits against reality.

I cited NAB Catholic Translation that "Peter was wrong" in deed, which speaks louder than words.

And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong (Gal. 2:11 NAB)

The delusion I claimed "Peter did no wrong" is clear cognitive dissonance on your part.

I extrapolate that to the entire Catholic belief. You have a bible in which "modern Catholicism" is contradicted on many levels, yet Catholic apologists insist Catholicism is steeped in scripture. That delusion exhibits extreme cognitive dissonance.

Very true! Don't forget that Jesus called Peter "Satan" and "a stumbling block" (shortly after proclaiming him a "rock".

 

[Alfred Persson]

Very true! Don't forget that Jesus called Peter "Satan" and "a stumbling block" (shortly after proclaiming him a "rock".

Although Peter was flawed (as we all are), and what you point to is correct----I don't agree with your assessment.

Neither of us would be a "pimple" on Peter's .ss. Its easy to condemn him for his cowardice, but until we also are tested I don't believe either of us have any "standing" before God to pass judgment. Jesus forgave Peter, so do I while I pray I not display the same cowardice when I am tested.

I beg God daily in Jesus' Name, that I make Him proud by my God-fearing witness to my persecutors, in the day I am tested, as Stephen did:

54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord;
58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:54-60 NKJ)

As Christ our LORD did:

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. (Lk. 23:34 KJV)

 

[jaybo]

Although Peter was flawed (as we all are), and what you point to is correct----I don't agree with your assessment.

Neither of us would be a "pimple" on Peter's .ss. Its easy to condemn him for his cowardice, but until we also are tested I don't believe either of us have any "standing" before God to pass judgment. Jesus forgave Peter, so do I while I pray I not display the same cowardice when I am tested.

I beg God daily in Jesus' Name, that I make Him proud by my God-fearing witness to my persecutors, in the day I am tested, as Stephen did:

54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth.
55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord;
58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not charge them with this sin." And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:54-60 NKJ)

As Christ our LORD did:

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. (Lk. 23:34 KJV)

My assessment is that Peter was a complex but flawed man. Remember also that Paul called him a hypocrite to his face when they were in Galatia because of his behavior.

My main concern however is that Catholics focus on Peter as the first Pope (which isn't mentioned in the Bible), that he was the leader of the apostles (even though the Bible says he was the apostle to the Jews), etc. Where is Jesus in all this? The focus should clearly be on God's Son, our Savior, not on a flawed disciple, but it isn't!

 

[Walpole]

My assessment is that Peter was a complex but flawed man. Remember also that Paul called him a hypocrite to his face when they were in Galatia because of his behavior.

If you think St. Peter was a complex but flawed man, you should read what Scripture says about St. Paul!

"And Saul approved of their killing him...But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison." (Acts 8:1, 3)

"Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples...'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'" (Acts 9:1, 4)


But like with St. Peter, St. Paul's story doesn't end there.

My main concern however is that Catholics focus on Peter as the first Pope (which isn't mentioned in the Bible), that he was the leader of the apostles (even though the Bible says he was the apostle to the Jews), etc. Where is Jesus in all this? The focus should clearly be on God's Son, our Savior, not on a flawed disciple, but it isn't!

You should read the conclusion of the Gospels to see how St. Peter's story ends. The encounter on the shore with the risen Lord is full of meaning and demonstrates our Blessed Lord's role for St. Peter.

 

[Mungo]

If you think St. Peter was a complex but flawed man, you should read what Scripture says about St. Paul!

"And Saul approved of their killing him...But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison." (Acts 8:1, 3)

"Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples...'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'" (Acts 9:1, 4)

Also Paul was a hypocrite.

He argues against circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

In Gal 5 he writes Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Then we read in Acts 16 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

 

[Mungo]

My main concern however is that Catholics focus on Peter as the first Pope (which isn't mentioned in the Bible)

The words incarnation and Trinity aren't in the Bible either.

that he was the leader of the apostles (even though the Bible says he was the apostle to the Jews), etc.

Yes he was the leader of the apostles. See The Primacy of Peter post #1

 

[Mungo]

As an apostle, both Peter's deeds and words were always informative, a teaching moment. Christians would pay both particular and specially intense heed. He was no mere bishop or priest. He was one of the Twelve, perhaps the most prominent among them.

I dispute your claim that deed are necessarily teaching moments.
But even if they were they don not fulfill the requirement for an infallible statement of doctrine.

You seem to be making the common Protestant mistake a thinking everything a Pope says is an infallible statement of doctrine.
As I explained to you in the thread Question about Infallibility

The Church teaches that "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, 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." (CCC 891).

Such an infallible declaration is very rare. In the last 200 years there have only been two such declarations, one in 1854 (the Immaculate Conception) and 1950 (Assumption of Mary).

Such declarations are only made after consulting the Bishops throughout the world. It's not, as I once heard Richard Dawkins claim, "The Pope wakes up one day and over breakfast decides to infallibly declare a new doctrine which Catholics must believe" ( or words to that effect).

 

[Walpole]

Also Paul was a hypocrite.

He argues against circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

In Gal 5 he writes Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Then we read in Acts 16 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Indeed.

But I see we are back to building the tired old straw man of conflating impeccability with infallibility.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Also Paul was a hypocrite.

He argues against circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

In Gal 5 he writes Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Then we read in Acts 16 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Not a hypocrite. He explained his reasoning here:

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;
20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;
22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. (1 Cor. 9:19-23 NKJ)

 

[Mungo]

Not a hypocrite. He explained his reasoning here:

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;
20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;
22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you. (1 Cor. 9:19-23 NKJ)

He made another person live like a Jew when he had previously argued that was wrong.
He was a hypocrite.

 

[Alfred Persson]

He made another person live like a Jew when he had previously argued that was wrong.
He was a hypocrite.

Incorrect, "another believer" agreed with Paul's strategy and chose to win those under the law with Paul and not insist upon his liberty in Christ::

to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law

 

[Mungo]

Incorrect, "another believer" agreed with Paul's strategy and chose to win those under the law with Paul and not insist upon his liberty in Christ::

to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law

Actually that statement of Paul's' rather shows his hypocrisy. He told some people to behave in a certain way but then tried to deceive people by behaving differently.

Moreover the text says "he took him and circumcised him". It doesn't sound as if Timothy volunteered to be circumcised.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Actually that statement of Paul's' rather shows his hypocrisy. He told some people to behave in a certain way but then tried to deceive people by behaving differently.

Moreover the text says "he took him and circumcised him". It doesn't sound as if Timothy volunteered to be circumcised.

So you believe Paul wrestled Timothy to the floor, held him down with one hand and circumcised with the other!

Cognitive dissonance to the nth degree. Textbook case.

 

[Mungo]

So you believe Paul wrestled Timothy to the floor, held him down with one hand and circumcised with the other!

A persuasive person like Paul wouldn't need to use physical force.
There are many other means of coercion.

Cognitive dissonance to the nth degree. Textbook case.

When people start throwing out insults it is a clear sign they have lost the argument.

 

[Alfred Persson]

A persuasive person like Paul wouldn't need to use physical force.
There are many other means of coercion.



When people start throwing out insults it is a clear sign they have lost the argument.

Not an insult, God created us with cognitive bias because without it we'd freeze up like a computer without instructions unable to function whenever an unexpected event conflicted with our view of reality.

A cognitive bias ...

Although it may seem like such misperceptions would be aberrations, biases can help humans find commonalities and shortcuts to assist in the navigation of common situations in life.- Wikipedia

But critical thinking can overrule unhelpful cognitive bias and prevent its extreme manifestation "cognitive dissonance."

Thinking critically is a choice I made long ago, lest this proverb be true about me:

And He also spoke a parable to them: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit? (Lk. 6:39 NAU)

 

[Mungo]

Not an insult, God created us with cognitive bias because without it we'd freeze up like a computer without instructions unable to function whenever an unexpected event conflicted with our view of reality.



But critical thinking can overrule unhelpful cognitive bias and prevent its extreme manifestation "cognitive dissonance."

Thinking critically is a choice I made long ago, lest this proverb be true about me:

And He also spoke a parable to them: "A blind man cannot guide a blind man, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit? (Lk. 6:39 NAU)