Papal Infallibility (Pope Innerancy). Can the Pope ever be in the wrong?

[Jonathan Mathews]

The Rock in this particular verse was Peter, whose name literally means "Rock".

Elsewhere in Scripture Christ is also called the Rock. So Christ essentially named Simon bar Jonah after Himself, and it is to Peter whom Christ refers in this verse. Not Himself.

Jesus called Peter "petros" meaning stone or boulder. But when He says "on THIS Rock" Jesus used a different word: "petra" meaning large mass of rock, cave, cliff. Christ is the Greater Rock. Peter is the lesser rock.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

1 Timothy 3:15: "But if I should be delayed, I have written so that you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Thanks!

 

[Mountainmike]

Jesus called Peter "petros" meaning stone or boulder. But when He says "on THIS Rock" Jesus used a different word: "petra" meaning large mass of rock, cave, cliff. Christ is the Greater Rock. Peter is the lesser rock.

I am aware some try to teach that. But it really does not wash. In aramaic there is no gender difference so the same word would have been used for Peter and Rock.. It is also gramatically incorrect to presume what you say.

Thou art Peter rock and on THIS rock I will build...
If he had meant other than peter he would have said "thou art peter but on THAT rock...."
So the greek change was just done for emphasis.

It is also worth studying WHERE this happened, near a temple of Pan at Caesaria phillipi. On a rock with a river at the entry to what they beleived was the underworld. That is the contrast of rocks.

Jesus was saying "the temple of Pan may be built on that rock....mine will be built on this rock naming Peter!

The entire church was built on stewards. We see them through the OT
A steward was a man in charge whilst the king was away. And was also chief pastor. They really did have a key as a symbol of authority. Just as the pope carries as an emblem now. It a job he does. It does not make him superhuman!

So it is not entirely surprising that Jesus appoints another.
Understand the "keys of the kingdom" Jesus always quoted old testament so the Jews would understand who looked for meaning there.

That is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22:20
"He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
The steward was a succession appointment.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

I am aware some try to teach that. But it really does not wash. In aramaic there is no gender difference so the same word would have been used. It is also gramatically incorrect to presume what you say.

Thou art Peter rock and on THIS rock I will build...
If he had meant other than peter he would have said "thou art peter but on THAT rock...."

The entire church was built on stewards. We see them through the OT
A steward was a man in charge whilst the king was away. And was also chief pastor.

So it is not entirely surprising that Jesus appoints another.
Understand the "keys of the kingdom" Jesus always quoted old testament so the Jews would understand who looked for meaning there.

That is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22:20
"He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
The steward was a succession appointment.

"Thou art "petros". That was Christ declaring the Faith of Christ in Peter.
"On THIS "Petra" I will build my Church"... that was Christ declaring Himself

Peter is a foundation stone (Revelation 21:14). Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone. (Ephesians 2:20)

 

[Mountainmike]

"Thou art "petros". That was Christ declaring the Faith of Christ in Peter.
"On THIS "Petra" I will build my Church"... that was Christ declaring Himself

It does not make sense in ancient langage. This refers to a subject. Whatever exegetical cartwheels you try.
How can he give the keys of the kingdom to a "you" if he meant himself?
And the OT clearly shows the keys of the kingdom as the second in command.

Now read the context of the conversation. Stood on a rock near a temple of Pan. Then you will get it.
As I said, the conversation took place in aramaic. Perhaps Galilean, it certainly wasnt in Greek! The differnce in language does not exist there, it is the same word.

The final question...why did he call peter "Rock" if Jesus did not want confusion on who was the "Rock" it doesnt make sense!

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

"Thou art "petros". That was Christ declaring the Faith of Christ in Peter.
"On THIS "Petra" I will build my Church"... that was Christ declaring Himself

It does not make sense in ancient langage. This refers to a subject. Whatever exegetical cartwheels you try.
How can he give the keys of the kingdom to a "you" if he meant himself?
And the OT clearly shows the keys of the kingdom as the second in command.

Now read the context of the conversation. Stood on a rock near a temple of Pan. Then you will get it.
As I said, the conversation took place in aramaic. Perhaps Galilean, it certainly wasnt in Greek! The differnce in language does not exist there, it is the same word.

The final question...why did he call peter "Rock" if Jesus did not want confusion on who was the "Rock" it doesnt make sense!

To me, Peter being a foundation stone and Christ being the Chief Cornerstone is abundantly clear and unconfused.

 

[1stcenturylady]

This question is mainly to Catholics but anyone can answer with Scripture.

Do you believe in "papal infallibility"? That is to say, can the Pope ever sin or be in sin? Can he ever be wrong in His official teaching, views, actions, or beliefs? Since you believe Peter was the first Pope of the Church, do you know of a case in Scripture where this earthly leader of the universal church was in the wrong and had to be rebuked/corrected by someone else on earth?

Scriptures to read:
Galatians 2:11-21

I'm not Catholic so I won't comment on the Pope's infallibility. What I would like you to consider is this about Peter. You do not have his side of the story.

If you, a drinker, brought a friend who was one month sober to a gathering where everyone was drinking, would you drink, or remain sober with your friend? Would you offend the drinkers and stay sober, or offend the one struggling, and drink in front of him? That is the decision Peter had to make. He was between a rock and a hard place. Maybe it was Paul being too dogmatic, and not realizing he would have done the same thing as Peter if placed in his shoes.

James 1:19 So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; 20 for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 9:
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.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Yep. This is one of the verses which drives home for me that there was truly something special about Peter.

The Rock in this particular verse was Peter, whose name literally means "Rock".

Elsewhere in Scripture Christ is also called the Rock. So Christ essentially named Simon bar Jonah after Himself, and it is to Peter whom Christ refers in this verse. Not Himself.

learned yesterday that the use of the name is significant

Jesus only rebuked "Simon", I guess sort of verbally defrocking him by refusing to use his significant nickname

whereas Jesus always praised him as "Peter"

so the use of the name Peter, Cephas is theologically significant

 

[Erik Nelson]

Thanks to everyone who has helped me understand the differences between "infallibility" and "impeccability". I see no scripture that shows Peter's teaching was in error, but I read where his behavior was. But the Scriptures do say He was leading men astray from the Truth of the Gospel. He was in sin and leading men to sin. God sent Paul, a "lesser" Apostle to rebuke/correct him and he repented. Any Pope who places himself above this kind of mutual accountability of the Saints is dangerous. I don't have any accusations against any Pope that I am aware of. It's just a word of warning because even a Pope can lead men astray from the Truth of Gospel of Christ.

Saint Peter was trying to maintain the peace, appeasing the "Judaizers" (those who said gentiles had to first convert to Judaism, evidently denying that Salvation could extend to gentiles)

Peter wasn't leading so much as appeasing pressure from that party, whereas Paul advocated a sterner stance, and was soon vindicated at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15 c.50 AD)

 

[Erik Nelson]

Jesus called Peter "petros" meaning stone or boulder. But when He says "on THIS Rock" Jesus used a different word: "petra" meaning large mass of rock, cave, cliff. Christ is the Greater Rock. Peter is the lesser rock.

was Jesus actually speaking Greek ?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Thanks to everyone who has helped me understand the differences between "infallibility" and "impeccability". I see no scripture that shows Peter's teaching was in error, but I read where his behavior was. But the Scriptures do say He was leading men astray from the Truth of the Gospel. He was in sin and leading men to sin. God sent Paul, a "lesser" Apostle to rebuke/correct him and he repented. Any Pope who places himself above this kind of mutual accountability of the Saints is dangerous. I don't have any accusations against any Pope that I am aware of. It's just a word of warning because even a Pope can lead men astray from the Truth of Gospel of Christ.

Where does it say that Peter repented from Paul's rebuke? I don't recall hearing anything about Peter's side to the story.

 

[crossnote]

There are a lot more limits on infallibility than people understand. A lot of it rests on clarification of things already in the Deposit of Faith.

A final statement on such a theological matter from the Pope would be infallible. Like the definition of the Immaculate Conception.

How does this 'deposit of faith' differ from Scripture?
Where in Scripture is the Immaculate Conception taught?
Or can Church Bodies come up with their own ideas outside of Scripture? i.e. Eastern/Russian Orthodox, Anglican, Roman Catholics, Non 'Roman' Catholics, Lutherans etc.

 

[Albion]

Christ had an important role for Peter and Peter was one of his closest Apostles. The idea that he was the first "Pope," however, is something else; and the church did not even think to refer to the verse in Matthew that is today use as "proof" by Catholics...until hundreds of years after Peter's time.

 

[GingerBeer]

Do you believe in "papal infallibility"? That is to say, can the Pope ever sin or be in sin?

Infallibility means truthfulness not sinlessness. Impeccability means sinlessness.

 

[Cis.jd]

I will talk scripture, with out research first!

 

[tz620q]

Where does it say that Peter repented from Paul's rebuke? I don't recall hearing anything about Peter's side to the story.

It might just be me; but I actually see Paul relenting in Romans chapter 14 where Paul writes to the Church in Rome (where traditionally we are told Peter resided) and says the following:

"1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them."

This seems to be Paul acknowledging that it is OK to change ones eating habits to not treat with contempt those who eat with you.

 

[Petros2015]

So let's say tomorrow the Pope decided to try to infallibly declare against what has been held for 2,000 years. He could not.

I think it's more that he could infallibly declare a new resolution to be held as church dogma, such as the Assumption of Mary.

Munificentissimus Deus (November 1, 1950) | PIUS XII

Doesn't go against the deposit of faith undoing something, rather codifies generally held beliefs into dogma. Whereas declaring a Quadrinity of Father, Son, Spirit and Mother as a new revelation probably would be met with an uproar (I think?). I don't know, give it some time

I'm not RCC, so we don't really believe he holds the authority he thinks he does anyway. But it's interesting to know and understand what the bounds of that authority are and how it is used. It's more of a Add-On-Of-New-Revelations deal... I think RCC would call it 'an unfolding of truth' from their perspective.

 

[J.P. Zaleta]

This question is mainly to Catholics but anyone can answer with Scripture.

Do you believe in "papal infallibility"? That is to say, can the Pope ever sin or be in sin? Can he ever be wrong in His official teaching, views, actions, or beliefs? Since you believe Peter was the first Pope of the Church, do you know of a case in Scripture where this earthly leader of the universal church was in the wrong and had to be rebuked/corrected by someone else on earth?

Scriptures to read:
Galatians 2:11-21

Hey Jonathan Hi all

Just a thought…

Not only does Paul correct Peter face to face in Gal.
He goes to The Council in Jerusalem
and appears face to face there.

Where he corrects them about circumcision and The Law.
Supposedly they agree with what he said, sending letters
to the churches supporting that view.

But those who came from James,
were those who got Peter into the face to face with Paul.

So, I don’t think they did.

I see the individual authority figure
and the council authority figure as being wrong.

Fortunately, we can trust Jesus to work all things for our good
including disputes about what is inerrant.

God bless
JP

 

[GingerBeer]

It is shooting imaginary fish in a barrel to fight about Peter being wrong and Paul fixing him up as some sort of proof that popes cannot be infallible because infallible does not mean sinless and it does not mean nevermakesamistake. Infallible means that a statement or set of statements are true. Some say that the bible is infallible meaning that they think that everything in it is true. They do not mean that the bible is sinless and they do not mean that the writers of the bible were sinless or that they were always right all that is meant is that what is written by them in the bible is true.

 

[crossnote]

I will talk scripture, with out research first!

LOL, Is that like receiving 'dog'ma without researching Scripture first?

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Act 17:11)