S
shliahgaossimyacob27
Guest
Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered: Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow hereafter.
St John 13:36 DRC1752
St John 13:36 DRC1752
If Peter(and the Pope) is infallible, then why did Peter rejected the Jesus 3 times?
- Status
T
tafan2
Guest
Was Peter teaching from his chair when he denied Jesus?
Q
QuillWriter
Guest
And did Peter even have his chair yet, as Jesus had not yet ascended to heaven and left Peter fully in charge?
J
julietteamdg
Guest
Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
Popes are not perfect, they are human and sin just like everybody else does. They make mistakes.
Popes are not perfect, they are human and sin just like everybody else does. They make mistakes.
S
shliahgaossimyacob27
Guest
Yes, he was.
M
Maximian
Guest
… and now you have just discovered why one should be able to disagree with Pope Francis without being called “Protestant” “Heretic” “Nutter” and other insults.
S
shliahgaossimyacob27
Guest
Wait, the peter have the chair after the Jesus’s ascended?
T
Tecnologgamer
Guest
Fulton Sheen writes about it.
The fact Peter and the Pope is infallible when is subjects is about the faith and the doctrines teaches, Pope Francis for example may have many issues that many catholics critics about him, but when talk about the faith it’s clear that is very orthodox.
When a man is elected by the sacerdotal order it’s not only a symbolic mark on his body, but in his souls, too. The priest still is a man with the human nature which slope to evil, but different from others he can bring God to Earth with the Eucharist, for our and his sins. When Peter denied Jesus three times Peter act like Simon and not like Peter the Rock. The same goes for the priest, when they give us the confessions they act in Persona Christi.
The fact Peter and the Pope is infallible when is subjects is about the faith and the doctrines teaches, Pope Francis for example may have many issues that many catholics critics about him, but when talk about the faith it’s clear that is very orthodox.
When a man is elected by the sacerdotal order it’s not only a symbolic mark on his body, but in his souls, too. The priest still is a man with the human nature which slope to evil, but different from others he can bring God to Earth with the Eucharist, for our and his sins. When Peter denied Jesus three times Peter act like Simon and not like Peter the Rock. The same goes for the priest, when they give us the confessions they act in Persona Christi.
L
Limoncello4021
Guest
OP, please learn about the teaching on the infallibility of the Pope in Catholic tradition. This is an area that is often misunderstood, and your comments reflect this misunderstanding. Please learn about it.
A
aroosi
Guest
The Pope isn’t Perfect
The contributors to this website are often accused of having an unthinking devotion to Pope Francis, or of blindly agreeing with everything he says. I’ve seen many critics on social media claim that we make excuses and twist ourselves into
wherepeteris.com
Q
QuillWriter
Guest
Honestly, I don’t really know. I wasn’t there, and I hadn’t thought about it much until now. Certainly Peter had been appointed as the Pope, the one with the keys, before Christ’s crucifixion and Peter’s denial, and this was re-confirmed later when Christ asks Peter to feed His sheep three times, after His resurrection, thus letting Peter sort of un-do his denial.
So Peter may have had his chair and been appointed to it at that time, for the future, but did he exercise it until after Jesus ascended? I would guess no, simply because while Jesus was there, I think the apostles, including Peter, would defer to Jesus.
tldr; Peter had been appointed to his chair as Pope before Jesus’s ascension, but I guess what I’m sort of pondering here is whether he fully exercised that before Jesus’s ascension, since while Jesus was around, Peter would naturally defer to Him.
So Peter may have had his chair and been appointed to it at that time, for the future, but did he exercise it until after Jesus ascended? I would guess no, simply because while Jesus was there, I think the apostles, including Peter, would defer to Jesus.
tldr; Peter had been appointed to his chair as Pope before Jesus’s ascension, but I guess what I’m sort of pondering here is whether he fully exercised that before Jesus’s ascension, since while Jesus was around, Peter would naturally defer to Him.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Peter wasn’t Pope yet when he did his Jesus-rejecting.
The Church wasn’t even created yet at that stage, much less had a Pope.
Would be like naming George Washington the President of the USA in 1750 before the American Revolution.
The Church wasn’t even created yet at that stage, much less had a Pope.
Not logically possible to appoint a man as the Pope of a church that did not yet exist.
Would be like naming George Washington the President of the USA in 1750 before the American Revolution.
^^This too.
Last edited:
No, he wasn’t. Sorry to say, but some study is definitely needed. You need to read up on exactly what it means when the Pope teaches from the chair.
Even if we were to grant that Peter was already Pope at the time, what he was doing was sinning, not teaching. Infallibility is not the same as impeccability.
And even when he was Pope, he still made mistakes, such that one of his fellow bishops had to correct him publicly due to his bad behaviour. But then again, bad behaviour has nothing to do with infallibility, since he wasn’t formally teaching anything.
But I can tell you at least three times when Peter was infallible. First, when he confessed Jesus as the Son of the living God. Second, when he made the doctrinal pronouncement on the Judaizers (yes, some will claim James made the pronouncement, but a close look will show that Peter essentially issued the doctrine, i.e. Papal Bull/Encyclical, while James issued an Instruction, i.e. the discipline). And third, when he wrote 1 Peter. And quite possibly, 2 Peter, if Peter was indeed the author.
Last edited:
M
mdgspencer
Guest
.
The Pope isn’t infallible in everything. He isn’t infallible if he says it will rain later today.
More to the point, Peter knew who Jesus really was when he denied him. So he didn’t deny the truth then, rather he sinned then. No one says Jesus gave him the power not to sin.
This is to repeat what others have said here, perhaps better.
The Pope isn’t infallible in everything. He isn’t infallible if he says it will rain later today.
More to the point, Peter knew who Jesus really was when he denied him. So he didn’t deny the truth then, rather he sinned then. No one says Jesus gave him the power not to sin.
This is to repeat what others have said here, perhaps better.
Last edited:
Q
QuillWriter
Guest
“Not logically possible to appoint a man as the Pope of a church that did not yet exist.”
I’m not sure I agree. You can definitely appoint someone as your successor for an event that hasn’t yet happened, or of a specific role in an organization that isn’t yet formed as a physical, public entity. I don’t see that as illogical at all.
I’m not dead yet, but I can appoint someone in my will to take over as writer in my unfinished book series if I should die before they’re finished. Heirs are named to succeed a king that hasn’t died yet. A group of people can come together and take on specific roles as they work to found a company.
And wouldn’t it have been rather pointless to give Peter the keys, if that didn’t get hold any meaning or weight since the Church wasn’t yet formed?
And going by Scripture, Christ had marked and appointed Peter for a special role in the future Church, in giving him the keys to the kingdom that he didn’t give to the rest of the apostles. That role, of course, would eventually be termed the papacy.
Was Peter yet acting in that role when he denied Jesus? No, because the Church as an entity didn’t yet exist as such, and wouldn’t until after Jesus 's Ascension and the event of Pentecost. Thus, Peter couldn’t be acting as Pope when he denied Jesus at the crucifixion, much less making a pronouncement from his chair that didn’t exist yet.
Which was the point of my initial post, but I seem to have worded it poorly when trying to expand on that in subsequent ones. I think we actually agree that Peter wasn’t acting as Pope at that time, I just fouled up what I was saying, somehow. I was entertaining the what if part of the OP’s question a bit, and trying to make the point that even if Peter had been able to speak infallibly at that point in time, he wouldn’t have, out of deference to Christ, who was still with them. Therefore, there wasn’t any need to speak infallible yet, as they could still get teaching and pronouncements straight from the mouth of Jesus, at that point.
All of this is rather a disraction, though. As was pointed out further up thread, the real heart of the matter is that the OP doesn’t understand the papacy and how it functions. If he or she understood that, then his or her questions about Peter’s denial in relation to papal infallibility would be moot. The OP seems to be making the common mistake of thinking infallibility means impeccability, or sinlessness.
I’m not sure I agree. You can definitely appoint someone as your successor for an event that hasn’t yet happened, or of a specific role in an organization that isn’t yet formed as a physical, public entity. I don’t see that as illogical at all.
I’m not dead yet, but I can appoint someone in my will to take over as writer in my unfinished book series if I should die before they’re finished. Heirs are named to succeed a king that hasn’t died yet. A group of people can come together and take on specific roles as they work to found a company.
And wouldn’t it have been rather pointless to give Peter the keys, if that didn’t get hold any meaning or weight since the Church wasn’t yet formed?
And going by Scripture, Christ had marked and appointed Peter for a special role in the future Church, in giving him the keys to the kingdom that he didn’t give to the rest of the apostles. That role, of course, would eventually be termed the papacy.
Was Peter yet acting in that role when he denied Jesus? No, because the Church as an entity didn’t yet exist as such, and wouldn’t until after Jesus 's Ascension and the event of Pentecost. Thus, Peter couldn’t be acting as Pope when he denied Jesus at the crucifixion, much less making a pronouncement from his chair that didn’t exist yet.
Which was the point of my initial post, but I seem to have worded it poorly when trying to expand on that in subsequent ones. I think we actually agree that Peter wasn’t acting as Pope at that time, I just fouled up what I was saying, somehow. I was entertaining the what if part of the OP’s question a bit, and trying to make the point that even if Peter had been able to speak infallibly at that point in time, he wouldn’t have, out of deference to Christ, who was still with them. Therefore, there wasn’t any need to speak infallible yet, as they could still get teaching and pronouncements straight from the mouth of Jesus, at that point.
All of this is rather a disraction, though. As was pointed out further up thread, the real heart of the matter is that the OP doesn’t understand the papacy and how it functions. If he or she understood that, then his or her questions about Peter’s denial in relation to papal infallibility would be moot. The OP seems to be making the common mistake of thinking infallibility means impeccability, or sinlessness.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Way I see it is that the Church hadn’t started yet, Peter hadn’t taken the reins as Pope, he was still learning, he didn’t even understand Christ was going to rise from the dead yet, or what that would entail.
He may have been the designated future leader, or the presumptive nominee, or however you want to put it, but he wasn’t Pope then, and was not in any position to be infallible yet.
That to me closes the question.
He may have been the designated future leader, or the presumptive nominee, or however you want to put it, but he wasn’t Pope then, and was not in any position to be infallible yet.
That to me closes the question.
D
Dlee
Guest
This 12345
- Status