thessalonian Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians right? So the Protestant line is this proves that Peter wasn't the first Pope because men aren't supposed to rebuke their superiors. Clearly Paul would have known this rule and so would not have done such a thing. Funny thing on the way through the Bible. By the logic used by Protestants to "disprove" the papacy it seems they have "disproven" that Jesus was the messiah. You see Peter rebuked Jesus. Mark 8:32 "Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him." Funny how their arguements always fall short of the Mark. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 thess, I love the way you think. Pax Christi. <>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulls Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 never heard that argument. it's pretty dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 so then maybe you would like to point out HOW it's dumb . . . sheesh, you'd think you could actually point out an inconsistency or a flaw . . . nope, you just call it dumb and that's that . . . you're so authoritative, but strangely you don't believe in Authority when it comes to Christ's Church . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted October 30, 2003 Author Share Posted October 30, 2003 never heard that argument. it's pretty dumb. Dumb? Mine or theirs? I don't care if you say mine is dumb because I admit it is! That is if you use it to show Jesus is not the Messiah which I am not. Just as theirs is dumb if you try to use it to show that Peter was not the cheif apostle. Thanks for stopping by though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willguy Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Thess, another point is that papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope cannot be rebuked. St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope, and she's a fickin saint, canonized and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katholikos Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Thess, another point is that papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope cannot be rebuked. St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope, and she's a fickin saint, canonized and everything. What is a "fickin saint"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 :o Eeeks. Yeah, that's totally...offensive. You made a great point without the f word thingy there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdewolf2 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I heard somewhere that Catholics have a responsibility to rebuke the Pope to keep him in line if he strays ever so slightly from the true path. Infallibility does not extend to every word he utters, every step he takes, and every little gesture he makes. He may very well make wrong decisions. Infallibility only says that he wlil never declare an article of faith to be an error, or an error to be an article of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 yeah, Peter was makin a mistake in the way he was acting, if i'm not mistaken he was dining with the gentiles when other Jewish Christians weren't around, but then stayed away from them while they were around. plus he was encouraging a wrong DISCIPLINE of circumsision.. he wasn't teaching that one must be circumsised to attain salvation or anything like that, he was just encouraging the Gentiles to do so. St. Paul must've went up to him and been like "Cephas, u know what, you're sposedta be the cheif apostle! the rock! come on get your act together and be a better example to everyone else. otherwise they're prolly not gonna accept your teachings" or somethin along those lines. like if we had a pope that was smokin a joint and a Cardinal saw him, they'd go over and rebuke him. err.. if he was bein hypocritical, like Peter was bein. anyway, how come we don't call him Pope St. Peter the Great i think we should give him "The Great" in his name B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Infallibility is a negative grace, which confuses many protestants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Gus Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 There's nothing wrong with rebuking the Pope. He is a man after all isn't he? And there's only one man who is without sin, and that's the big JC himself, so that would imply that EVERY SINGLE OTHER MAN in existence will be in need of rebuking (a.k.a. correcting) at at least one point in their life. There's nothing wrong with rebuking the Pope, but I think there may be some confusion over his infallibility. The Pope is only infallible when he is making a statement on morals and doctrine, and that's only because he is speaking on behalf of the Church. You see, really the Pope isn't infallible at all, the Church is, and the Pope speaks on behalf of the Church. So yeah, I don't see how Paul telling Peter off for being a bit of a Johnsonville brat undermines his authority as Pope at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulls Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 the so called protestant argument is dumb. SETTLE DOWN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 ... whatz the real deal protestant argument mulls? cuz that definitely is A protestant argument.. cuz i've heard it b4 maybe not your protestant argument that'z just kuz prots are divided and interpret alll sorts of passages all sorts of ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted October 31, 2003 Author Share Posted October 31, 2003 the so called protestant argument is dumb. SETTLE DOWN I'm quite settled. Amen to your post. Problem is I find 95% of their arguements to be nonsense. The other problem is that nobody in Protestantism ever seems to mind that they abuse and misuse scripture in such a fashion. The Protestant Apologists, Svedson, Webster, White, Gedron, use these dumb arguements and everyone says HERE! HERE! and buys their books. I bet you can find this arguement in every one of these "experts on Catholicism" books. Seems it is okay to have a dumb arguement as long as it is directed against Catholicism. I don't really care except that the unsuspecting fence sitter many times get's pulled in by these dumb arguements. Except for that when people bring them up I laugh a bit inside. 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