Some more questions..

[Lyle]

I know, perviously, I have been given links to such Catholic web-pages, and so I have viewed them. But i ran across something quite interesting in my Bible, and, since I love answers from people, i want to pose them to you. I'll start with two of them...

Is not Peter regarded as the first pope?
Is the pope fallible?

 

[Dream]

Is not Peter regarded as the first pope?

Yes, he is the first pope. All preists can trace their roots back to him, and essentially Jesus Christ.

Is the pope fallible?

Yes, unless he is speaking ex-cathreda.

 

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

I know, perviously, I have been given links to such Catholic web-pages, and so I have viewed them. But i ran across something quite interesting in my Bible, and, since I love answers from people, i want to pose them to you. I'll start with two of them...

Is not Peter regarded as the first pope?
Is the pope fallible?

Hi there Lyle!

I'm still a newbie Catholic, but I'll give it a shot:

1) Yes
2) Here's a piece of a passage from the Catechism. It should explain it:
:
891 "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. . . .

Hope this helps!

Peace in Christ!

 

[BjBarnett]

I know, perviously, I have been given links to such Catholic web-pages, and so I have viewed them. But i ran across something quite interesting in my Bible, and, since I love answers from people, i want to pose them to you. I'll start with two of them...

Is not Peter regarded as the first pope?
Is the pope fallible?

1. yes Peter was the first Pope.
2. Popes are infallible when they speak on faith and morals from ex cathedra. they are not perfect however and commit sins, make mistakes, and other things of that sort. they are in fact very much human

 

[Michelina]

Yes, he is the first pope. All priests can trace their roots back to him, and essentially Jesus Christ.

All priests trace their 'roots' back to Peter or one of the other Twelve Apostles.

 

[Michelina]

Hi, Lyle!

What does your avatar mean?

 

[lonnienord]

thought you'd catch us didn't you. I know the scripture you were reading the one where JESUS had to say to Peter get behind me satan. But we all know that our popes can and do make mistakes. our Current pope goes to confession almost daily.

all for JESUS!!
lonnie

 

[Lyle]

Hey, thank you everyone for responding Now for the second part, for Peter. I ran across this in my Bible. Perhaps you may not respond, I just want you to maybe think about it (give your opinion after considering)...

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

I want to focus namely on verse 11. Peter here was going about preaching the gospel. But at this point he was preaching it wrong. He was apperently teaching that in order to receive salvation one must first go through circumcision. Paul saw this as error, and cited him for it. Even so that he wiuthstood Peter to the face. We don't have many details on this meaning, but it gives good evidence to show that there was some form of argument between the to, and the Pater was actually at fault and wrong.

Now I'm sure some may say, and rightly so, that Peter was not at fault. if that is the case, then you must deny that much of the Bible is false, and this is not good. But I'm curious about why you all may say to this. if Peter was the first pope, how then was he wrong??

Just, before anything happens i will denounce some of the lie that has flown aorund. I am not a catholic hater, nor am I out to attack and debate others. if I argue and nobody listens, have i not argued in vain? I agree that many Catholics are Christians, and many aren't. Just like other demoninations. There will always be those amoung us who pose as Christians, but are not ture followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.. This is even in the early church. And if i should attack my brothers on every minor issue, where then does honor lie? I do not mean to offend, just challenage. Iron sharpens iron

Thanks to all..

What does your avatar mean?

Nothing more then a funny picture i found. I guess it was for the Christmas season, but forgot to take it down...

thought you'd catch us didn't you. I know the scripture you were reading the one where JESUS had to say to Peter get behind me satan. But we all know that our popes can and do make mistakes. our Current pope goes to confession almost daily.

No sir, not at all.


Grace and peace,
Lyle

 

[BjBarnett]

if Peter was the first pope, how then was he wrong??

who said that he couldnt be wrong? some might say that John Paul has done some things that were "wrong". Popes are humans to like I said above.

 

[Michelina]

I want to focus namely on verse 11. Peter here was going about preaching the gospel. But at this point he was preaching it wrong. He was apperently teaching that in order to receive salvation one must first go through circumcision. Paul saw this as error, and cited him for it. Even so that he wiuthstood Peter to the face. We don't have many details on this meaning, but it gives good evidence to show that there was some form of argument between the to, and the Pater was actually at fault and wrong.

Paul accuses Peter of bad behavior not of false teaching.

Now I'm sure some may say, and rightly so, that Peter was not at fault. if that is the case, then you must deny that much of the Bible is false, and this is not good. But I'm curious about why you all may say to this. if Peter was the first pope, how then was he wrong??

"if that is the case, then you must deny that much of the Bible is false"

Non sequitur.

if I argue and nobody listens, have i not argued in vain?

Huh?

Iron sharpens iron

???

 

[Alexis OCA]

Getting the feeling this is a set up.

 

[Lyle]

who said that he couldnt be wrong? some might say that John Paul has done some things that were "wrong". Popes are humans to like I said above.

This is what I gathered from those posts above...
I do believe your quote was

2. Popes are infallible when they speak on faith and morals from ex cathedra.

Peter was teaching/spreading the gospel. it wasn't personal conduct that made Paul upset enough to oppose Peter, but teaching. If they infallible, if i am understanding this correctly, when they teach, then Peterm in theory, Peter could not be wrong, no?

Paul accuses Peter of bad behavior not of false teaching.

But why does it say, "for he was to blame.." To blame means something is done wrong.

In it's original greek context it means "to note against, that is, find fault with: - blame, condemn." This would show that Peter was wrong.

Non sequitur.

?

The other two comments you used are not meant for the argument, but side notes. it seems that when I would question a teaching of the catholic church in the past, I would be labeled a Catholic hater without second thought, and told that i was well on my way to hell. I'm just trying to cut off those comments to show that there is not ill-intent in my post.

But, if a moderator sees fit, they may move this to Christian Theology..

 

[Michelina]

Peter was teaching/spreading the gospel. it wasn't personal conduct that made Paul upset enough to oppose Peter, but teaching.

False. Re-read the passage. Your underlying assumption is false.

Repeating it won't make it true.

And I am sure you know what Non Sequitur means.

 

[Lyle]

And I am sure you know what Non Sequitur means.

Yes, but I'm just missing how it fits in here..

False. Re-read the passage. Your underlying assumption is false.

i have re-read it, over and over, and in Greek as well. Since I don't seem to find anything different, you explain it to me, if you will What do you find from this passage..

According to the Greek, Paul condems Peter...

 

[Michelina]

:troll:

 

[plainswolf]

Peter was not teaching anything, he was setting a bad exanple by his not eating with the Gentiles who were uncircumcised-[according to the old Mosaic law]. Peter was rebuked by Paul in a "disciplinary matter" not one of Faith and Morals.

The infallibility of the Pope is reserved only for matters of Faith and Morals and only under certain conditions which must be abided by in order for him to make an infallible-[ex cathedra/from the chair] statement.

1. He must be speaking as one voice for the whole Chruch.
2. He must be defining a matter of Faith or Morals.
3. He must be speaking with the full authority of his apostolic office-[as the visible head of the Church].


J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[plainswolf]

:troll:

ooops..

J.M.J.
plainswolf

 

[Michelina]

ooops..

Excellent response, nevertheless.

 

[Skripper]

Peter was teaching/spreading the gospel. it wasn't personal conduct that made Paul upset enough to oppose Peter, but teaching. If they infallible, if i am understanding this correctly, when they teach, then Peterm in theory, Peter could not be wrong, no?

This is plainly not true, as Michelina has already pointed out, and as the passage itself clearly indicates.

Hey, thank you everyone for responding Now for the second part, for Peter. I ran across this in my Bible. Perhaps you may not respond, I just want you to maybe think about it (give your opinion after considering)...

I want to focus namely on verse 11. Peter here was going about preaching the gospel. But at this point he was preaching it wrong. He was apperently teaching that in order to receive salvation one must first go through circumcision. Paul saw this as error, and cited him for it. Even so that he wiuthstood Peter to the face. We don't have many details on this meaning, but it gives good evidence to show that there was some form of argument between the to, and the Pater was actually at fault and wrong.



Now I'm sure some may say, and rightly so, that Peter was not at fault. if that is the case, then you must deny that much of the Bible is false, and this is not good. But I'm curious about why you all may say to this. if Peter was the first pope, how then was he wrong??

No, Lyle, that's not at all what the passage is indicating. Peter isn't teaching the necessity of circumcision (not sure how you gleaned that from the passage). That's not what the passage says, nor is it why Paul rebuked him. Peter refused to eat with Gentiles, after having done so in the past, because he was afraid of the circumcised (verse 12). Paul goes on to explain "why" he rebuked Peter, which had nothing whatsover to do, either with circumcision, or with Peter teaching anything, let alone "wrong." Paul rebuked Peter, not for anything he taught (especially not the necessity of circumcision for salvation, since nowhere does Peter teach that) but rather for his personal behavior. For his "hypocrisy" (verse 13). Not for false teachings.



So you see, Lyle, this passage has no effect whatsoever, on either Peter's infallibility or on the infallibility of the Pope. You've simply misunderstood the passage.

Just, before anything happens i will denounce some of the lie that has flown aorund. I am not a catholic hater, nor am I out to attack and debate others. if I argue and nobody listens, have i not argued in vain? I agree that many Catholics are Christians, and many aren't. Just like other demoninations.

All Catholics are Christians, Lyle, whether or not they are good Christians. And Catholics do not consider themselves a "denomination."

There will always be those amoung us who pose as Christians, but are not ture followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.. This is even in the early church. And if i should attack my brothers on every minor issue, where then does honor lie? I do not mean to offend, just challenage. Iron sharpens iron

While we appreciate your encouragement that we sharpen up, I need to remind you, as an OBOB moderator, that debating by non-Catholics is not permitted in OBOB. Please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the OBOB forum rules: Click here for rules



Please observe these rules and I’m sure your stay here will be not only pleasant, but mutually beneficial as well.

 

[geocajun]

I want to focus namely on verse 11. Peter here was going about preaching the gospel. But at this point he was preaching it wrong. He was apperently teaching that in order to receive salvation one must first go through circumcision.

Lyle, I'm not sure where you got that idea. What you see is St. Paul telling St. Peter that his bad example (hypocrisy) could compell Gentiles (non circumsized Christians) to live like Jews (circumsized Christians). The reason he said this in fact is because he recognized Peter supremecy among the Apostles and was afraid his example in this circumstance would cause scandal.

St. Peter never preached in this case, but rather it was his example of not eating with the uncircumsized Christians, but rather with only the jewish (circumsized) Christians.
There is nothing objectivly wrong with that behavior mind you - but given the circumstances it would seem to imply that a gentile convert would need to be circumsized. This was not the case, so St. Paul opposed St. Peter on those grounds.