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

[Erik Nelson]

'Some group' happens to be four out of five patriarchates, Rome being the fifth.

So you admit by this reasoning that your own argument is not logically valid. Plus you switched the goal posts. I was talking about Rome's claims regarding Papal Supremacy, not Rome's primacy.

Only 1/5th of the world's population is Christian at present -- is everyone else automatically right ?

 

[tulipbee]

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

they say it's impossible for traditions to be wrong. every word the pope say becomes the tradition. they have a trillion+ traditions. reformers made traditions smaller by returning back to the bible.

 

[tz620q]

they say it's impossible for traditions to be wrong. every word the pope say becomes the tradition. they have a trillion+ traditions. reformers made traditions smaller by returning back to the bible.

Of course in some sense that which is said (By this I take it to mean written down in some way, because unless recorded verbal communications cease to exist the moment they are uttered.) becomes tradition. That is why they are written down, so that they can be preserved and become part of the historical record. However, tradition is a different topic from Holy Tradition, which has as its source the teachings of Christ, his apostles, and the early church fathers. The Bible is part of Holy Tradition, not a separate entity.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

I've noticed, over the last 25 years, the general public has become more intelligent. Generally speaking. This, in my opinion, is mostly due to the world wide web. Take for instance my profession, HVAC. When I was in college (pre www) the majority of the public had basically zero intellect regarding the laws governing the cooling process; not to mention ohm's law and circuitry. Today, if one is so inclined, they can educate themselves on any topic. Having said that, the same can NOT be said regarding Christianity. Not that we CAN'T but the inclination isn't there. Sunday morning I saw a pole result: people who read the Bible at least twice a week = 35%, at least once a month = 8%, at least once a year = 10% and seldom or never = 45%. The fact that daily reading wasn't even an option, speaks volumes! We are not a "Godly" people/country.
In God's word, His will for humanity, He went to great lengths to enable us know Him. How we should conduct ourselves in marriage, business, child rearing, worship, prayer, obedience, politics, taxation, edification, the elderly.....EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE: KJV
783,137 words
31,102 verses
1,189 chapters
80 books
I would consider that as being thorough!!
If what Catholicism teaches is true; papal office is God's will and that the pope is infallible. The New Testament could have been worded this way.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him might have eternal life. Jesus was crucified, rose again the third day, walked among us and ascended back to Heaven and sits at the right hand of God. I am your Living God and I establish the vicor of Christ: he is infallible and shall lead you unto all righteousness. Follow the vicor of Christ and inherit a crown of righteousness.
If Catholicism is true, what else would we need to know? Honestly.
In Him

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Peter is remembered as the first Patriarch of Antioch & Rome by all Church Tradition

A more reliable account would be from early church fathers. If they don't mention Peter in those terms then I would say that the notion would be false. It has been discovered that two significant early documents on which the church depended for some of it basic doctrine were actually forgeries. And successive 'tradtion" has comprised "ex cathedra" statements by successive popes, added to Scripture.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I really don't know if you're attempting to tear me down or build me up.
In Him

All I am actually doing is to state what is correct about Peter. Our faith is not in Peter or any other person in any position in the church, whether it be a pope or a big name ministry in a Charismatic or Evangelical setting. Our faith is in Christ and what He did on the cross for us.

Peter was just a person like all the rest of us. True, he did have an important role to fulfill in his time, and he worked to point people to Christ as their sole foundation for faith, and he gave his life because of it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Then you should have no problem stating who it was that Emperor Constantine set up as pope of Rome and citing the relevant documents.

That how I understand it from my reading of church history. He actually shifted the capital from Rome to Constantinople and installed a vice-regent to administer the western empire from Rome. Any standard church history text will tell you that, or looking it up on Wikipedia. Your fingers can do the walking as well as mine,

 

[prodromos]

That how I understand it from my reading of church history.

I haven't asked for how YOU understand it, I've asked for what historians who don't have a religious stake in what they write have to say about it.

He actually shifted the capital from Rome to Constantinople and installed a vice-regent to administer the western empire from Rome.

This isn't what you claimed before though, is it. You claimed Constantine selected his choice for the bishop of Rome, nothing about a vice-regent.

Any standard church history text will tell you that, or looking it up on Wikipedia. Your fingers can do the walking as well as mine,

When you settle on a particular claim, I might investigate. Right now you are all over the place.

 

[tulipbee]

Of course in some sense that which is said (By this I take it to mean written down in some way, because unless recorded verbal communications cease to exist the moment they are uttered.) becomes tradition. That is why they are written down, so that they can be preserved and become part of the historical record. However, tradition is a different topic from Holy Tradition, which has as its source the teachings of Christ, his apostles, and the early church fathers. The Bible is part of Holy Tradition, not a separate entity.

not all ecf were honest

 

[prodromos]

not all ecf were honest

Which ones were dishonest?

 

[Erik Nelson]

A more reliable account would be from early church fathers. If they don't mention Peter in those terms then I would say that the notion would be false. It has been discovered that two significant early documents on which the church depended for some of it basic doctrine were actually forgeries. And successive 'tradtion" has comprised "ex cathedra" statements by successive popes, added to Scripture.

ECFs like Saints Evodius & Ignatius, who remembered having succeeded Saint Peter as Bishops of Antioch ?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

ECFs like Saints Evodius & Ignatius, who remembered having succeeded Saint Peter as Bishops of Antioch ?

It is true that Peter was at Antioch. It is also true that James was the senior person in the church at Jerusalem rather than Peter, and there is no record that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome at any stage.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I haven't asked for how YOU understand it, I've asked for what historians who don't have a religious stake in what they write have to say about it.

This isn't what you claimed before though, is it. You claimed Constantine selected his choice for the bishop of Rome, nothing about a vice-regent.

When you settle on a particular claim, I might investigate. Right now you are all over the place.

The Donation of Constantine purported to memorialize the transfer to Sylvester I and his successors of dominion over the entire Western Roman Empire for the consideration of Sylvester I's instruction of Constantine in Christianity, baptism of Constantine, and curing Constantine of leprosy. Constantine allegedly kept for himself only the Eastern Roman Empire. The forgery was probably constructed during the Frankish Papacy, when Pope Stephen II became the first pope to cross the Alps to crown Pepin the Short, who issued the Donation of Pepin (a non-forgery), granting the pope control of the lands of the Lombards, which coalesced into the first fragments of the Papal States.

It was not long before the document was denounced as a forgery, notably by Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor (r. 983-1002). By the mid 15th century, not even the popes themselves regarded the document as genuine. Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla further proved its falsity in 1440 by showing that its Latin language did not correspond to that of the 4th century. The "Donation" purports to acknowledge the primacy of Rome over Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople, even though the last of these had not even been founded at the time of the claimed Donation.[12]
Bishops of Rome under Constantine I - Wikipedia
I could have been misled by this fraudulent document.

 

[Erik Nelson]

It is true that Peter was at Antioch. It is also true that James was the senior person in the church at Jerusalem rather than Peter, and there is no record that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome at any stage.

Peter installed James upon fleeing the city due to persecution (Acts 12)

earliest Church Tradition remembered Peter & Paul preaching in Rome, why that Church was considered especially well founded

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John. Around 170 A.D., Irenaeus confirms and elaborates upon Papias’ report:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies, 3:1)
​

appleeye.org/2014/01/04/the-gospel-of-matthew-was-first-written-in-hebrew/
​

 

[prodromos]

I could have been misled by this fraudulent document

The one that no historian considered genuine?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The one that no historian considered genuine?

I will have a conference with my theological advisor (in the photo on the left) to see where we go from here.

 

[prodromos]

Peter installed James upon fleeing the city due to persecution (Acts 12)

Say what?!?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I will have a conference with my theological advisor (in the photo on the left) to see where we go from here.

Funny... all I can get out of him is "meow!"

 

[Erik Nelson]

Say what?!?

Acts 12:17
But motioning to them with his hand to keep silent, he declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” And he departed and went to another place.

NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible
12:17... James. This James, Jesus’ half-brother (15:13; 21:18; Gal 1:19), differs from the one executed in v. 2; the name (lit. “Jacob”) was common in Judea and Galilee. Known for his conservative piety, this James would invite less hostile attention from the people Agrippa sought to please (v. 3). Indeed, when a high priest martyred him 15 to 20 years later, those most devout in the law, probably Pharisees, led the outcry against the high priest.

 

[prodromos]

Acts 12:17
But motioning to them with his hand to keep silent, he declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” And he departed and went to another place.

NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible
12:17... James. This James, Jesus’ half-brother (15:13; 21:18; Gal 1:19), differs from the one executed in v. 2; the name (lit. “Jacob”) was common in Judea and Galilee. Known for his conservative piety, this James would invite less hostile attention from the people Agrippa sought to please (v. 3). Indeed, when a high priest martyred him 15 to 20 years later, those most devout in the law, probably Pharisees, led the outcry against the high priest.

And?
How do you possibly come to the conclusion that Peter installed James from that?
Do you have anything from Church tradition that even makes such a suggestion?