How would you respond to this from Scripture?

[Tobias2]

This is not an easy answer so pay attention. The word: interpretation" had often been used to justify ignoring the scriptures. e.g. When a potential convert asks. what they need to do:

That’s what I would tell them, NOT, "accept Jesus as your personal savior, or anythimg else that would be classified as an “interpretation”. The idea that infants who are incapable of repenting comes from 4th century apostacy, the idea that baptism is not needed at all is centuries later.

No of course not, "infalllibility’ is a very late Catholic doctrine, and is simply based upon a power grab by popes. s the Pope infallible? Hardly, And there is no New Testament justification for a “pope” either. They erroneously use a passage from Matthew 16: as their rationale for a Pope. However it was the “confession” of Peter, not Peter, that is, the confession that the believer confesses before he or she is baptized that Jesus built His Church upon. Peter was a prominant Apostle, but hardly Pope material. Peter was marriedMark 1:29-30; Luke 4:38-39) Peter was not infallible: (Galatians 2:11-12) He wasn’t a bishop, he was an Apostle.

 

[seagal]

To understand what Catholics mean by papal infallibility, there is a very good article here. Some quotes from the article to your questions.

As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching

The article also answers your questions about how and why the church came to the understanding of the doctrine of infallibility, and about Peter’s own actions. Read it and then come back.

 

[nickybr38]

Peter was marriedMark 1:29-30; Luke 4:38-39) Peter was not infallible: (Galatians 2:11-12) He wasn’t a bishop, he was an Apostle.

Most likely Peter was widowed. The Pope is not infallible EXCEPT when speaking on issues of morals. The Apostles WERE the first Bishops. Jesus had hundreds of followers, he only named 12 of them Disciples above the rest.

 

[fred_conty]

This is not an easy answer so pay attention. The word: interpretation" had often been used to justify ignoring the scriptures. e.g. When a potential convert asks. what they need to do:

That’s what I would tell them, NOT, "accept Jesus as your personal savior, or anythimg else that would be classified as an “interpretation”. The idea that infants who are incapable of repenting comes from 4th century apostacy, the idea that baptism is not needed at all is centuries later.

No of course not, "infalllibility’ is a very late Catholic doctrine, and is simply based upon a power grab by popes. s the Pope infallible? Hardly, And there is no New Testament justification for a “pope” either. They erroneously use a passage from Matthew 16: as their rationale for a Pope. However it was the “confession” of Peter, not Peter, that is, the confession that the believer confesses before he or she is baptized that Jesus built His Church upon. Peter was a prominant Apostle, but hardly Pope material. Peter was marriedMark 1:29-30; Luke 4:38-39) Peter was not infallible: (Galatians 2:11-12) He wasn’t a bishop, he was an Apostle.

I’m sorry but your questions in this post are unclear. I would like to answer but I do not know what you are asking except for “infallibility” which was answered very nicely by Segal. Rephrasing the question would help.

 

[promethius]

This is not an easy answer so pay attention. The word: interpretation" had often been used to justify ignoring the scriptures. e.g. When a potential convert asks. what they need to do:

That’s what I would tell them, NOT, "accept Jesus as your personal savior, or anythimg else that would be classified as an “interpretation”. The idea that infants who are incapable of repenting comes from 4th century apostacy, the idea that baptism is not needed at all is centuries later.

No of course not, "infalllibility’ is a very late Catholic doctrine, and is simply based upon a power grab by popes. s the Pope infallible? Hardly, And there is no New Testament justification for a “pope” either. They erroneously use a passage from Matthew 16: as their rationale for a Pope. However it was the “confession” of Peter, not Peter, that is, the confession that the believer confesses before he or she is baptized that Jesus built His Church upon. Peter was a prominant Apostle, but hardly Pope material. Peter was marriedMark 1:29-30; Luke 4:38-39) Peter was not infallible: (Galatians 2:11-12) He wasn’t a bishop, he was an Apostle.

Reported for violation of forum rules.

 

[Gorgias]

And there is no New Testament justification for a “pope” either. They erroneously use a passage from Matthew 16: as their rationale for a Pope.

Here’s the way I like to view it: are you a parent? If so, did your child pop out of the womb, calling you “Mama” or “Papa”? Of course not. It took them a year or so to get to the point where they used the word, and a whole lot of additional time before they could express what they meant by the term. Does that mean that you weren’t their Papa when they were born, or that there was no justification for them to call you ‘Papa’? Of course not – that’s a ludicrous assertion! Same thing here – the fact that there wasn’t an established theology of the papacy during the Church’s infancy (that is, during the time that the Gospels were set down), does not “invalidate” the Church’s understanding of what it means to be the visible leader of the Church.