infinitelord1 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297483721' post='2211571'] 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 [/quote] Im not really sure if thats exactly what is going on here. In the following verse it says... 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” So here I think Jesus Clarifies what he meant by... 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." I think in order to get the overall picture of what is going on here...you have to read the surrounding scripture quotes. Before any of this is mentioned, Jesus is telling them how to rebuke people in the Church. Thats all the following verses are relating to. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297478445' post='2211550'] infallibility was established in the 1800s, officially [/quote] To be more specific, papal infallibity was defined at Vatican I in the 1880s. Defining the doctrin caused a small schism; the group that split off is now referred to (at least in English) as The Old Catholic Church. Some of the really weird splinter groups that claim they have apostolic succession got it through The Old Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297483566' post='2211569'] If Cephas is not Peter would that not deem the Catholic Church wrong in one of its Teachings? Im not buying this. [/quote] Sorry I should have clarified my post. I was referring to the Galatians verses. Sort of off topic, but someone referenced that episode. I dont think it was Peter, but another prominent disciple who may have been a bishop at the time. Paul rebuked Cephas for favoritism and yielding to vain customs. {2:11} But when Cephas had arrived at Antioch, I stood against him to his face, because he was blameworthy. {2:12} For before certain ones arrived from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they had arrived, he drew apart and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. {2:13} And the other Jews consented to his pretense, so that even Barnabas was led by them into that falseness. {2:14} But when I had seen that they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas in front of everyone: “If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Jews?” {2:15} By nature, we are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners. I wasnt referring to the Council of Jerusalem. My fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kafka' timestamp='1297492514' post='2211623'] Sorry I should have clarified my post. I was referring to the Galatians verses. Sort of off topic, but someone referenced that episode. I dont think it was Peter, but another prominent disciple who may have been a bishop at the time. Paul rebuked Cephas for favoritism and yielding to vain customs. {2:11} But when Cephas had arrived at Antioch, I stood against him to his face, because he was blameworthy. {2:12} For before certain ones arrived from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they had arrived, he drew apart and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. {2:13} And the other Jews consented to his pretense, so that even Barnabas was led by them into that falseness. {2:14} But when I had seen that they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas in front of everyone: “If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Jews?” {2:15} By nature, we are Jews, and not of the Gentiles, sinners. I wasnt referring to the Council of Jerusalem. My fault. [/quote] But Cephas is Simon Peter. And in Aramaic it (Cephas) means "The Rock" just like in Matthew 16 when Jesus refers to Peter as the Rock. I can't see why we wouldn't think that Cephas in Galatians is not the same person. Unless you want to rely on someone's dream. I am not going to. Edited February 12, 2011 by infinitelord1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) [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] It is not wrong to rebuke a leader. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope that was trying to keep the papacy in Avignon. Good that Catherine Emmerich is not infallible. History, tradition, and the passage itself do not support her. To me this story confirms Catholic understanding of infallibility. This type of claim is an overelevation of the papacy in the minds of some. The humanity of the office is to be understood while the divinity is recognized. Peter was known to have been Bishop of Antioch for a time so that supports it being him. Historically Peter/Cephas was extremely rare as a name in these days. Edited February 12, 2011 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1297483721' post='2211571'] 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 [/quote] Anyone? The statement in Matt 18 is to the apostles collectively, including Peter. This to me fits will with infallibility of councils who are the sucessors of the apostles. Thus it seems very appropriate and consistent with Catholic theology that Matt 16:18 points to papal infallibility and there is a passage very much like it that shows the broader infallibility of the Bishops in council with the Pope. Dairy you go 90% with Catholicism then you do something like this asserting your personal opinion. Trust not in your own understanding dairy. Prov 3:5. God gave shepherds after his own heart who will provide you knowledge and understanding. Jer 3:15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Healthy rebukes are great for the faith. It is too bad you can't rebuke too much anymore - most people get so defensive when you say - look, I don't agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) it looks to me like matthew 18 is for everyone. you deal with unrepentent people as described by matthew 18. that passage is used to describe how to deal with them, by everyone. it's not thought of as only applying to the apostles, in everyday reference. that verses seems more like dilluting the 'binding and losing' passage of of Peter and the keys. Edited February 12, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297501055' post='2211633'] But Cephas is Simon Peter. And in Aramaic it (Cephas) means "The Rock" just like in Matthew 16 when Jesus refers to Peter as the Rock. I can't see why we wouldn't think that Cephas in Galatians is not the same person. Unless you want to rely on someone's dream. I am not going to. [/quote] Right. Her private revelations are fallible, I place some value on them, but one shouldnt rely on them. [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1297526750' post='2211676'] It is not wrong to rebuke a leader. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope that was trying to keep the papacy in Avignon. Good that Catherine Emmerich is not infallible. History, tradition, and the passage itself do not support her. To me this story confirms Catholic understanding of infallibility. This type of claim is an overelevation of the papacy in the minds of some. The humanity of the office is to be understood while the divinity is recognized. Peter was known to have been Bishop of Antioch for a time so that supports it being him. Historically Peter/Cephas was extremely rare as a name in these days. [/quote] Right, and I agree about rebuking and the limits of the Pope. I just thought it was interesting. I still think it is strange that Paul uses both names in the passage: Peter and Cephas, and lists James before Cephas, but the interpretation favoring it being Peter and the fact that the Pope is not personally infallible, is sinful, can make an unwise decision, can hold a personal opinion that is erroneous and so on is certainly valid in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1297529939' post='2211695'] Healthy rebukes are great for the faith. It is too bad you can't rebuke too much anymore - most people get so defensive when you say - look, I don't agree with that. [/quote] I like it when people rebuke me from sin. So long as they don't think they are in charge of me in anyway. Besides that I feel a sense of structure from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinytherese Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297467635' post='2211512'] 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. [/quote] Yes, there is eveidence in the writings of the early Church Fathers in belief in papal infallibility. http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 [quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297564712' post='2211854'] I like it when people rebuke me from sin. So long as they don't think they are in charge of me in anyway. Besides that I feel a sense of structure from it. [/quote] I like it too. Though some of my rebukes on this board have been - "We've got 2,000 years of tradition that says you are wrong," . . . Especially on a debate board, nobody should be that rude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now