Topic: Views on St. Peter: Orthodox and Roman Catholic

[bogdan]

Split off from ""My Exodus from Roman Catholicism" new book by Bp Paul Ballester" - Schultz.

I've read the link to the bio on him and honestly can't understand what his complaints were?  Why is it unreasonable to assume that St. Paul, at least acknowledged St Peters supremacy over him, even if it wasn't exercised at all by the latter?  

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

[elijahmaria]

I've read the link to the bio on him and honestly can't understand what his complaints were?  Why is it unreasonable to assume that St. Paul, at least acknowledged St Peters supremacy over him, even if it wasn't exercised at all by the latter? 

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

One might say there is comfort in knowing that Peter and his successors, the Vaticanists, were not and were not expected to be perfect.

[biro]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

[Wyatt]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

[Kasatkin fan]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

Jesus said that to Peter after he failed a test. Jesus was instructing Peter on how he might ultimately pass the test, and Peter did follow the advice and in the end did pass the test. Peter was a lowly fisherman and sinner who became a Great man. The Church which fawns over him sadly has followed the opposite course.

[Kasatkin fan]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

[biro]

So, the Orthodox arguments in this thread stop at the "get thee behind me" remark and act like the rest of Peter's life never happened?

What does that have to do with the Roman Catholics?

Bogdan also implied that St. Peter's orthodoxy was in doubt. That explains all the Orthodox churches named after St. Peter, and the icons I see of St. Peter in church... 

There was no argument against 'supremacy' going on, just a reductio ad absurdam. That's not a proof. That's a fallacy.

This is how St. Peter died for Christ:



That can't make up for anything else, can it? 

[Αριστοκλής]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

Martyred, yes, as were many if not most of the saints of the first three centuries (and many, many, more since then.) Your point?

We don't try to make our point. We DO make our point. That is really what you don't like, isn't it?
What do you expect on an Orthodox Catholic forum? Our reception and treatment on RC boards is far less tender than what you RCs get here on OC.net

[biro]

Wrong, and wrong. And I'm not Roman Catholic anymore. Haven't been for a long time. I just don't like the "we don't support the present view of the RCC papacy, so let's ignore whatever happened to St. Peter after the 'get thee behind me' statement" school of thought. It's comparing apples to oranges. I think if the debate is down to belittling or making dishonest edits of the saint's life, it has lost all credibility.

[Kasatkin fan]

So, the Orthodox arguments in this thread stop at the "get thee behind me" remark and act like the rest of Peter's life never happened?

Yes, that's what I said (since I'm the only Orthodox member to respond between your two posts), except for the bits where I didn't.

What does that have to do with the Roman Catholics?

Probably the bit where you (Roman Catholics) base your entire authority on Peter and his actions.

Bogdan also implied that St. Peter's orthodoxy was in doubt. That explains all the Orthodox churches named after St. Peter, and the icons I see of St. Peter in church... 

It was at times, like when he was preaching Judahism prior to the Council of Jerusalem. But like a good Christian, he accepted rightous correction.

There was no argument against 'supremacy' going on, just a reductio ad absurdam. That's not a proof. That's a fallacy.

There was also no discussion of infallibility going on. Wyatt claimed, however, that the Council of Jerusalem is used to argue against it, it isn't, it is used to argue against the even more base supremacy. Naturally if supremacy is wrong, infallibility is as well, so it is an indirect argument. Nonetheless, it is your co-religionist who is bringing this up out of nowhere.

This is how St. Peter died for Christ:

He died a Christian death.

That can't make up for anything else, can it? 

Of course not, it is by God's grace that we are saved, however as I mentioned in my previous post, in such a way did he pass the test which had led to him being commanded to "feed my sheep".

[Kasatkin fan]

Wrong, and wrong. And I'm not Roman Catholic anymore. Haven't been for a long time. I just don't like the "we don't support the present view of the RCC papacy, so let's ignore whatever happened to St. Peter after the 'get thee behind me' statement" school of thought. It's comparing apples to oranges. I think if the debate is down to belittling or making dishonest edits of the saint's life, it has lost all credibility.

Which dishonest edits?

[biro]

Wrong, and wrong. And I'm not Roman Catholic anymore. Haven't been for a long time. I just don't like the "we don't support the present view of the RCC papacy, so let's ignore whatever happened to St. Peter after the 'get thee behind me' statement" school of thought. It's comparing apples to oranges. I think if the debate is down to belittling or making dishonest edits of the saint's life, it has lost all credibility.

Kasatkin fan, you missed this.

But okay, if you still want to make incorrect statements about me, that's up to you. See you later.

[Kasatkin fan]

Wrong, and wrong. And I'm not Roman Catholic anymore. Haven't been for a long time. I just don't like the "we don't support the present view of the RCC papacy, so let's ignore whatever happened to St. Peter after the 'get thee behind me' statement" school of thought. It's comparing apples to oranges. I think if the debate is down to belittling or making dishonest edits of the saint's life, it has lost all credibility.

Kasatkin fan, you missed this.

But okay, if you still want to make incorrect statements about me, that's up to you. See you later.

You're right, that one small reference where I associated you with Roman Catholics. My apologies, I had not seen it when I wrote that, however the rest of my points still stand. As does the question of what dishonest edits people are making of the saints life.

[NicholasMyra]

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

[podkarpatska]

I think we are falling into a hole here, both Orthodox and Roman Catholic alike. Questing the orthodoxy of our mutual Saints is dangerous and a slippery slope indeed. I'm not sure that was what was intended, but the graphic response it elicited certainly shows that a raw nerve was touched.

[bogdan]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

I understand that, and I respect, honor, and venerate St Peter. I have not degraded him, I have pointed out facts. And as someone else noted, St Peter—being an honorable and holy man—accepted the correction of his brothers. I see no evidence for what Robb posted, that St Paul recognized some supremacy (not primacy, but supremacy) coming from St Peter.

I don't see Papal Supremacy in that. I see a group of men working out their own salvation in the episcopacy, and working to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit on behalf of their flocks. Sometimes they made mistakes, but always coming back to the truth when corrected. That the Church of the Apostles operated in a conciliar fashion is self-evident to me.

I didn't intend this to go down this rabbit trail; I was merely replying to Robb's comment and it spiraled from there.

[Wyatt]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

Actually, it has been used as an argument against both. That St. Paul's view won out against St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Infallibility, and that St. James had the final word instead of St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Supremacy. Both are wrong.

[Irish Hermit]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

Actually, it has been used as an argument against both. That St. Paul's view won out against St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Infallibility, and that St. James had the final word instead of St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Supremacy. Both are wrong.

If Christ had willed Peter to have any papal authority at the Council of Jerusalem then Catholics today would be required to circumcise their male children and to observe kosher food rules and not to eat with non-Jews.  Peter really was NOT doing a very good job in shepherding the Church in these areas.   

[Wyatt]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

Actually, it has been used as an argument against both. That St. Paul's view won out against St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Infallibility, and that St. James had the final word instead of St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Supremacy. Both are wrong.

If Christ had willed Peter to have any papal authority at the Council of Jerusalem then Catholics today would be required to circumcise their male children and to observe kosher food rules and not to eat with non-Jews.  Peter really was NOT doing a very good job in shepherding the Church in these areas.   

Wrong. If you will go back and read my previous post I pointed out that the issue of circumcision is in the same category as clerical celibacy. They are Church disciplines, not doctrines or dogmas. Not only can disciplines change, but they do change, and the Successor of St. Peter is not protected from erring on disciplines of the Church.

[ialmisry]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

Actually, it has been used as an argument against both. That St. Paul's view won out against St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Infallibility, and that St. James had the final word instead of St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Supremacy. Both are wrong.

Both are right.

[Wyatt]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

Actually, it has been used as an argument against both. That St. Paul's view won out against St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Infallibility, and that St. James had the final word instead of St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Supremacy. Both are wrong.

Both are right.

Nice retort. Very convincing.

[ialmisry]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

Read Galatians.

[Wyatt]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

Read Galatians.

If I do I am sure I won't buy into the interpretation you are wanting me to. I am not a sola scriptura Christian so I interpret Scripture through the living Tradition of my Church.

[ialmisry]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

And "Get behind Me, Satan" and many other things.  There's a context.  Christ didn't take St. Peter aside after the Resurrection and breathe on him. He breathed the Holy Spirit on all of them (except Thomas, and even he was among the Apostles as an equal).

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

So too were all the Apostles save St. John-to whom Christ said "Behold, your mother."  That also means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

In Antioch, we have plenty of respect for our founder, St. Peter.  But we don't make him into something he wasn't.

[ialmisry]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

Read Galatians.

If I do I am sure I won't buy into the interpretation you are wanting me to. I am not a sola scriptura Christian so I interpret Scripture through the living Tradition of my Church.

Try the living Tradition of Christ's Church.

[ialmisry]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

Actually, it has been used as an argument against both. That St. Paul's view won out against St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Infallibility, and that St. James had the final word instead of St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Supremacy. Both are wrong.

Both are right.

Nice retort. Very convincing.

For details, look over your post history. We've dealt with both issues before.

[Wyatt]

Try the living Tradition of Christ's Church.

I am trying it and loving it. It is you that keeps trying to deny it and oppose it. Good thing the gates of hell won't prevail. Thanks be to God!

For details, look over your post history. We've dealt with both issues before.

And I'm sure your responses were as riveting then as they are now.

[PeterTheAleut]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

Actually, it has been used as an argument against both. That St. Paul's view won out against St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Infallibility, and that St. James had the final word instead of St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Supremacy. Both are wrong.

Both are right.

Nice retort. Very convincing.

Yes, no less convincing than you stating that "both are wrong" without explaining HOW they're wrong.

[Wyatt]

Yes, no less convincing than you stating that "both are wrong" without explaining HOW they're wrong.

Pay attention:

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

Wrong. If you will go back and read my previous post I pointed out that the issue of circumcision is in the same category as clerical celibacy. They are Church disciplines, not doctrines or dogmas. Not only can disciplines change, but they do change, and the Successor of St. Peter is not protected from erring on disciplines of the Church.

[PeterTheAleut]

Yes, no less convincing than you stating that "both are wrong" without explaining HOW they're wrong.

Pay attention:

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

Wrong. If you will go back and read my previous post I pointed out that the issue of circumcision is in the same category as clerical celibacy. They are Church disciplines, not doctrines or dogmas. Not only can disciplines change, but they do change, and the Successor of St. Peter is not protected from erring on disciplines of the Church.

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

[Wyatt]

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility, and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them. Also, St. James speaking rather than St. Peter proves nothing. All it proves is that St. Peter didn't speak, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have.

[podkarpatska]

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility, and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them. Also, St. James speaking rather than St. Peter proves nothing. All it proves is that St. Peter didn't speak, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have.

^ Wow. I really don't see where Orthodox piety 'degrades' St. Peter. Certainly among the Slavic Orthodox both Saints Peter and Paul are among the most honored of the Apostles and have many churches and many faithful named for them over the centuries.

[Schultz]

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility, and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them. Also, St. James speaking rather than St. Peter proves nothing. All it proves is that St. Peter didn't speak, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have.

And then you wonder why certain people characterize you as an Ultramontanist.   

[Wyatt]

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility, and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them. Also, St. James speaking rather than St. Peter proves nothing. All it proves is that St. Peter didn't speak, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have.

And then you wonder why certain people characterize you as an Ultramontanist.   

If that's what being true to my Church makes me in your book, then so be it.

[Paisius]

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

We're not degrading St Peter, we're degrading the imaginary Peter the Roman Church has concocted.

[Paisius]

Wrong, and wrong. And I'm not Roman Catholic anymore. Haven't been for a long time. I just don't like the "we don't support the present view of the RCC papacy, so let's ignore whatever happened to St. Peter after the 'get thee behind me' statement" school of thought. It's comparing apples to oranges. I think if the debate is down to belittling or making dishonest edits of the saint's life, it has lost all credibility.

Good grief, practically the whole of Roman ecclesiology is based on one single verse of Scripture, "thou art Peter....."

You can't make much more of an edit than that.

We're not belittling or degrading anyone. Just trying to bring a little balance in regards to the Roman hypertrophy concerning St Peter.

[ialmisry]

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility,

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements?  And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Also, St. James speaking rather than St. Peter proves nothing. All it proves is that St. Peter didn't speak, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have.

St. Peter did speak.  But St. James had the final word.

[Schultz]

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility, and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them. Also, St. James speaking rather than St. Peter proves nothing. All it proves is that St. Peter didn't speak, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have.

And then you wonder why certain people characterize you as an Ultramontanist.   

If that's what being true to my Church makes me in your book, then so be it.

I never said you were.  Note I said, "certain people." 

Comprehension. Is. Fun.

[Melodist]

Christianity is historically centered on conciliarity among bishops. The Pope didn't have the final say on the celebration of Easter, the pope wasn't the sole recourse to defeating arianism, the pope wasn't even represented at Constantinople when the creed was put into it's current form, the Pope wasn't the sole authority on condemning eutychianism or nestorianism, the Tome of Leo was accepted as being Orthodox at Chalcedon only after being compared to St Cyril's writings and was still not used as the council's definition, Pope Honorius didn't have the final say concerning monotheletism (thank God), his successors weren't the final authority in condemning it, the Pope was not the final recourse in settling the iconoclast controversy, and even at the time of Florence, there was still dispute within the western church over whether the Pope was subject to the authority of a council or vice versa. This is history. This is what happened. Nothing anyone says about St Peter, good or bad, can change that. Formulating theories by prooftexting scripture and various fathers will not change the historical reality of how the Church has operated in these situations.

Just a few thoughts.

[Wyatt]

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

Uh...not really:

• Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
• Dogma of the Assumption

BOOM.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements?  And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Don't have to have a list. I follow my Church and I know the criteria for an infallible pronouncement. One criterion is it has to be on faith and morals, not discipline. Circumcision falls under the latter.

St. Peter did speak.  But St. James had the final word.

That doesn't prove St. Peter couldn't have stepped in and spoke after St. James, it only proves that he didn't.

[Father H]

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility,

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements?  And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Also, St. James speaking rather than St. Peter proves nothing. All it proves is that St. Peter didn't speak, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have.

St. Peter did speak.  But St. James had the final word.

I would like to see the list of infallible pronouncements. 

[Father H]

So there were no ex cathedra teachings before the doctrine of infallibility was defined?  

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

Uh...not really:

• Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
• Dogma of the Assumption

BOOM.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements?  And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Don't have to have a list. I follow my Church and I know the criteria for an infallible pronouncement. One criterion is it has to be on faith and morals, not discipline. Circumcision falls under the latter.

St. Peter did speak.  But St. James had the final word.

That doesn't prove St. Peter couldn't have stepped in and spoke after St. James, it only proves that he didn't.

[Father H]

Episcopal Conciliarity vs. Primatial Supremacy.  Hmm...

Acts 8.14
“Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them”

John 13:16
Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.

No ad extra interpretation required.  The text is clear.  The Apostles as a whole sent the pillars among them, Peter and John, and those who are sent are not greater than those who sent them.  Although it is quite obvious that the one who is sent is not greater than the one who sends, the Lord expressly spelled it out for everyone just in case ultramontanists came along and got confused.    

[Shlomlokh]

So there were no ex cathedra teachings before the doctrine of infallibility was defined?  

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

Uh...not really:

• Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
• Dogma of the Assumption

BOOM.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements?  And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Don't have to have a list. I follow my Church and I know the criteria for an infallible pronouncement. One criterion is it has to be on faith and morals, not discipline. Circumcision falls under the latter.

St. Peter did speak.  But St. James had the final word.

That doesn't prove St. Peter couldn't have stepped in and spoke after St. James, it only proves that he didn't.

Father, one thing I have never had answered by any of our RC friends was why it took a council to make the pope of Rome infallible. Why couldn't he infallibly declare himself to be so? To me, it seems akin to Christ having His Apostles declare Him to be divine instead of Him telling us Himself. There is also that controversy of the 19th century Irish catechism which claimed papal infallibility was a Protestant myth. 

In Christ,
Andrew

[Irish Hermit]

Sorry, that non sequitur doesn't explain anything.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility,

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements?  And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Also, St. James speaking rather than St. Peter proves nothing. All it proves is that St. Peter didn't speak, it doesn't prove that he couldn't have.

St. Peter did speak.  But St. James had the final word.

I would like to see the list of infallible pronouncements.  

The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only................................................ TWO.

Tim Staples says there are................................................................................... FOUR
and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are......... EIGHTEEN
(although he is not sure about four of them.)

The even more famous theologian Ludwig Ott says there are...................................... SIXTY.


I remember that Karl Keating, the head of CAF, had his own figure for infallible statements, but I cannot remember what it was.  

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is guess work.

Lots of confusion in the Catholic world.  What is infallible for one Catholic is not infallible for the next.

--------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Ott