Peter Rebuked By Paul

[Livin_the_MASS]

Ok so I have been debating with this person on youtube for the past month about the Catholic faith. I am putting this in the debate table in hoping of getting someone to help me with this debate. Here is the statement that I need help responding too...

[quote]Did Peter say the pope is infallible when speaking on faith and morals? The truth is Peter himself was rebuked by his fellow apostle Paul for a mistake he made concerning faith and law. (Gal.[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRGdhIkLOEQ#"][color="#4272db"]2:11[/color][/url]-16). Even the apostles never claimed infallibility and yet your church insists on the pope's infallibility. How then can you say your church was founded on Peter? [/quote]

I said to him before this that the Church was founded by Christ to Peter "Upon this Rock I will build MY CHURCH"

This is the first time I have come across this statement so all help and resources would be greatly appreciated!

[thessalonian]

Peter sinned in Galations by catering to the Jews. He had already made his proclaimation against circumcision in Acts 15 so his doctrine was not the issue. We don't claim popes cannot sin. He did not practice what he preached. We don't claim this is a violation of infallibility.

[MIKolbe]

This might also help with the issue of Papal Infalliblity:

[quote]The Church is not infallible because everybody in the Church from the Pope to the dog catcher is perfect, but because nobody in the Church, Pope to dog catcher, is perfect. God holds the Church's hand every step of the way and makes sure she doesn't spill the wine of revelation, not because we are dexterous and holy, but because we are all such sinful klutzes that, without him, we'd have lost track of the gospel an hour after Pentecost. That's all "infallibility" means.[/quote]

- taken from Mark Shea

[Nihil Obstat]

Any individual in the Church can be mistaken about this or that- laymen, priests, bishops, even popes (Arius? Honorius, anyone?). We believe in infallibility when the Magisterium speaks with a unified voice, and when an ex cathedra statement is made.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1297453282' post='2211412']
Peter sinned in Galations by catering to the Jews. He had already made his proclaimation against circumcision in Acts 15 so his doctrine was not the issue. We don't claim popes cannot sin. He did not practice what he preached. We don't claim this is a violation of infallibility.
[/quote]

amesomeness! Actually this shows his infallibility! When he spoke infront of everyone in ACTS 15 he spoke of no distinction between gentile or jew. He just didn't live up to what he spoke in Galations. THANK YOU!

[sixpence]

your main problem is:: having a debate on youtube!!!!!!!!!!

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1297459139' post='2211446']
your main problem is:: having a debate on youtube!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]
All I know is, this guy is making me work! He stumped me with his statement, but I knew phatmass wouldn't let me down!!

[infinitelord1]

When was the doctrine of Papal infallibility established? Do we have evidence, such as early Church Father teachings, of Papal Infallibility before the Edict of Milan? Other than scripture of course.

So I am gathering that the Pope is still capable of sinning. Its just that when there is a conflict about a certain issue...the Popes decision, to resolve that conflict, is infallible. i.e. circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem. Am I on the right track?

[kafka]

I recently read in the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich that Cephas was not Peter, but another disciple connected to one of the James, who later became prominent and there was also a footnote by the editor mentioning that a scholar or perhaps an early Saint recorded something similar, but I dont want to spend the time now to find it. If I come upon it again or if she mentions him again later in the book I will post if I remember.

If it is Peter, the Pope is not personally infallible, is sinful, can make an unwise decision, can hold a personal opinion that is erroneous; so he is not above being rebuked, however it seems to me that Paul would not have publicly rebuked him if he did in fact need rebuking. Without putting a lot of thought into it, it doesnt seem fitting. Maybe a private rebuke would be fitting.

Edited February 12, 2011 by kafka

[dairygirl4u2c]

infallibility was established in the 1800s, officially

[dairygirl4u2c]

infallibility was established in the 1800s, officially
there's nothing super definitive regarding infallibility before the edict of milan. that's a pretty big argument from the Orthodox church, nothing significantly definitive. also, the closest is cyprian, who arguably said that no bishop like a 'pope' could lead other bishops, and only viewed the catholic church as the Orthodox church views the universal church.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here's some interesting books off hand for someone interested in that subject.

You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy
http://www.orthodoxy...onPrimacy.shtml
Papacy and development : Newman and the primacy of the Pope
Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present


also here's something i tend to quote a lot here. for whatever its worth.
QUOTE
QUOTE
if you look at all those early church writings, even the ones from clement, and read them in the spirit of a unifying church, not necessarily in any way infallible, you'll see a different way to interpret history. ie just a unifying and persuasive authority.

the only possibly convincing quotes are from firmilian and cyprian. firmilian was not a believer, but in fact a non-believer in the autority of rome. cyprian... there's the cyprianic theory that said that the church was suppose to be one, but that doesn't necessarily imply what catholics say it does. i do know cardinal newman talks about the cyprianic theory briefly in that sense before he became catholic. see the next set of quotes for the context.

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

when i look at the question of whether hte orthodox broke away or who did. i see it exemplified by the pope steven (or was it victor?) controversy where the guy said said to the pope who excommunicated his people "in excommunicating us from you, you've excommunicated yourself from all". again, it goes back to how you take the pope's assertion to excommunicate. (remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.

lastly, not only could the dissenters at vatican I dissent, the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....


QUOTE
Here's Victor and Stephen info, two most notable events early on...


Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with firmilian and Cyprian:
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24).


============================

Quote

The majority of the North African bishops sided with Cyprian; and in the East he had a powerful ally in Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea. But the position of Stephen came to find general acceptance. Stephen in his letters used the claim of superiority of the Roman See over all bishoprics of the Church. To this claim Cyprian answered that the authority of the Roman bishop was coordinate with, not superior to, his own. Stephen broke off communion with Cyprian and Carthage, though perhaps without going as far as a formal excommunication of Cyprian.


even if bishops have authority on par with the pope on undefined things,,, the pope is requesting obedience, faith etc on this, and cyprian is refusing.
why should we assume he's just being stubborn to what's obviously true ie the CC?


-i can get you the book quote on cyprianic theory.
-that letter from firmilian which rejected any final papal claims, was to cyprian. i can provide proof if you want. that means they probably were on good terms with each other. that means, if his friend thought final pope as wrong, and cyprian appeared to too,,,, maybe that's the way it was.

again, if the person who claims adherence to the church is necessary, ie cyprian,,, yet this same person refuses to listen to the pope,,, maybe what adherence to the church means, is not what catholics say it means.

(If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Cyprian
-this is the quote etc that i'm referring to. if you look, as i said in my original post to you, at all the quotes at catholic.com, this and the firmilian quotes are the only real ones that might make you think the CC is true.
without them, you can read for hundreds and hundreds, well into 600+ quotes that do not provide a definitive basis in the papacy, beyond a primacy.
supremecy v. primacy

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297482181' post='2211565']
infallibility was established in the 1800s, officially
there's nothing super definitive regarding infallibility before the edict of milan. that's a pretty big argument from the Orthodox church, nothing significantly definitive. also, the closest is cyprian, who arguably said that no bishop like a 'pope' could lead other bishops, and only viewed the catholic church as the Orthodox church views the universal church.
[/quote]

Doctrine is not established usually until a conflict arises. Papal infallibility makes sense, but only when it is necessary. Right before Jesus told Peter that He was the Rock...Peter told Jesus that He was the Messiah. And Jesus confirmed to Peter that it had came from The Father. So there was obviously some connection between God The Father and Peter. And that connection would be Perfect or Infallible.

Edited February 12, 2011 by infinitelord1

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1297474598' post='2211537']
I recently read in the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich that Cephas was not Peter, but another disciple connected to one of the James, who later became prominent and there was also a footnote by the editor mentioning that a scholar or perhaps an early Saint recorded something similar, but I dont want to spend the time now to find it. If I come upon it again or if she mentions him again later in the book I will post if I remember.

If it is Peter, the Pope is not personally infallible, is sinful, can make an unwise decision, can hold a personal opinion that is erroneous; so he is not above being rebuked, however it seems to me that Paul would not have publicly rebuked him if he did in fact need rebuking. Without putting a lot of thought into it, it doesnt seem fitting. Maybe a private rebuke would be fitting.
[/quote]

If Cephas is not Peter would that not deem the Catholic Church wrong in one of its Teachings? Im not buying this.

Edited February 12, 2011 by infinitelord1

[dairygirl4u2c]

Jesus also told the other apostoles 'what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...' etc etc. i think he said it applied to anyone. matthew 18
not to get into a bible debate about infallibiity. i'd say history is more important given the inconclusiveness of hte bible, and i'd say history favors the view of the Orthodox church more than the CC