On this rock I build My Church

[setarcos]

If the emphasis is on the leaderships visibility, the visible actions of the leadership past and present destroys confidence in Jesus’s Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But I don’t think you mean what the Catholic Church means when they say the Pope is infallible. The Catholic understanding is that Christ appointed Peter to always be the unifying spokesmen for the universal Church. It’s not just a characteristic of any given pastor. Any bishop or priest can maintain the truth of the faith, of course. And they can stumble as well.

But because the bishop of Rome occupies Peter’s role today, he will NOT lead the Church astray, since he speaks with his brother bishops as representing the Church’s faith.

 

[setarcos]

There is absolutely no way to verify infallibility except by accepting axiomatic information to be infallible determined by fallible human beings. Circular and fallible logical validation.

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

I guess he could be infallible but if he is teaching wrong then you know he is not honest. And he is not always infallible but able to be. St James said all stumble that includes St Peter. Jesus is the chief cornerstone and the apostles are built on that. Therefore He will guide them into all truth if they are honest to not neglect the chief cornerstone. But Peter came to faith with the other apostles not on His own even if He was first. Perhaps God will ensure the faith will eventually be preserved keeping God’s teachings in His church but it is not always the case in the leaders but always among some of their believers but it is necessary the leaders also confirm the true believers in their church

 

[Thom18]

Thanks for your response I do believe God give Peter a trust and the keys of the kingdom perhaps but he is not infallible

Why do you say that? Peter had human failings like the rest of us, but everything he taught in regards to faith and morals was correct. The Holy Spirit prevented him (and prevents his successors) from teaching in error.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Of course there is. God, who is infallible, can tell us how to discern the Truth.

And he did:

Matthew 16:18, for starters.

 

[Thom18]

If the emphasis is on the leaderships visibility, the visible actions of the leadership past and present destroys confidence in Jesus’s Church.

Apply this same standard you’re using to judge the papacy to judge Jesus’ apostolate. Peter denied Jesus three times, Judas betrayed Him for silver, and there are sins that they all committed which aren’t recorded in Scripture. Should we dismiss the apostles because of their human failings?

 

[catholic1seeks]

They all have the holy spirit who can guide them into truth.

The question isn’t whether or not the Holy Spirit can guide us into truth. Of course He does!

The question is if Jesus appointed some visible means whereby we, as Christians living 2000 years after the fact, can discern what is authentic Christian Truth — without having to, in every age, rehash the same questions.

There is a reason, after all, we don’t have to discern in every age, on our own, what is and what is not Sacred Scripture. Part of that reason IS the Holy Spirit’s guidance, but in the visible ways Christ instituted: the Tradition of the Church maintained by the successors of the Apostles, the bishops.

 

[setarcos]

There’s no solid evidence Peter went to Rome. There is solid evidence the Roman Church was established before it was assumed Peter got there. There’s no solid expression in scripture Peter was ever looked upon as the sole leader of the apostles. In contrast Peter was sent out by others on missions, he was argued with, he was weak in Character and understanding during Jesus’s ministrations, He made no decisive leadership pronouncements beyond speculation of some responses to discussions such as at the Jerusalem council. What made Peter a great apostle was that he is us. He gives hope to every man that fails to meet Christ’s expectations and yet is loved beyond measure. What made Peter great was that even though he exhibited the weaknesses inherit in all humans he was still the heir to the most profound revelations ever given to mankind about reality so that, even though he may not have understood at the time, we may be witness to truth.

 

[catholic1seeks]

There’s no solid evidence Peter went to Rome.

Of course there is!

Nearly all 2nd and 3rd century Christians universally agreed, West and East, that Peter was in Rome.

There’s no solid expression in scripture Peter was ever looked upon as the sole leader of the apostles.

The primacy of Peter and Rome is one of my favorite personal research topics, and it’s one of the reasons that keeps me convinced of Catholicism. I coudln’t do the topic justice in a single post, or in this thread, which is not even about Peter’s primacy. The OP seems to agree with the primacy of Peter in some sense.

What is NOT up for any reasonable argument is that the early Church understood Peter to in some sense have a unique primacy among the Apostles.

 

[setarcos]

I take it on faith, Whether through natural proclivity or supernatural revelation, that God exists and by definition is infallible. Your missing the point though. If God can tell “us” how to discern the truth then why should “we” need to take it on faith that there is a visible leader who interprets this truth infallibly for “us”? You will notice that shortly after Matthew 16:18 even the recipient of Jesus message failed in understanding the very revelation given him.

 

[catholic1seeks]

There are roles in the Church. This is a given in Scripture:

He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Ephesians 4:10-15

The Apostles and their successors have a particular role for the “unity in the faith,” to quote above. Peter is the unifying point of the Church’s visible leadership so that, like at the Jerusalem council, the Church can speak with one voice.

 

[setarcos]

First off, your talking two to three hundred years after the period in question. Second during these centuries there was a lot of political maneuvering and manipulation going on and thirdly why Rome? Would it have been because this city just so happens to be the capital of the secular powers that be at the time? In other words if we are to live with Christianity they thought, then its center will extend from ours validating our leadership. Even Pauls letters to the Roman Church did not mention Peter being there at the time it is said he was…curious. What evidence is there that Peter was in Rome beyond idle speculation and opinion?

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

The orthodox church believes peter was in Rome and he died there

 

[setarcos]

Yes there are roles. Institutionally you need people with functions to make it work. However a single fallible human head of the universal Christian Church is not only dangerous but not validated in scripture by Jesus.

 

[steve-b]

Also vatican 2 believes protestants are saved if they are invincibly ignorant … how is that possible if the Lord says only those who eat His body He will raise at the last day? I have already explained my belief that protestants do eat His body and blood not only in the ordinance which they observe because the Lord instructed but as they contemplate His life and death and resurrection because it is evident they have spiritual life and there is more in the below link forum I made. But if communion is only given in 1 or more true churches how do you say people who are invincibly ignorant can be saved or that invincibly ignorant unbaptised people are saved when the Lord said unless you are born of water and the Spirit you can not enter the kingdom of God Assuredly.
I doubt God would make me have to accept the church to be saved when I can not accept with my conscience. He handed to me the bible so I can come to God through it. What has the church handed to me so I can easily accept it with my conscience.

I think I am not orthodox or catholic but I accept them. I am christian I suppose protestant

Re: Ignorance

We are ALL ignorant of way more things than we are knowledgeable of…

So therefore why even make distinctions about ignorance?

Re: things we need to know, vs things that are nice to know but not critical for us to know.

Among things we need to know, I would say, for me, salvation tops the list.

 

[catholic1seeks]

First off, your talking two to three hundred years after the period in question.

No, more like within 50 years. But note we don’t even have a lot of 1st and 2nd century documents discussing Peter’s Roman residency precisely because we don’t have a lot of 1st and 2nd century Christian documents, to begin with!

Anyway, around AD 110, Ignatius of Antioch (who may have known Peter, or at least Peter’s successor in Antioch, since he succeeded him in Antioch) addresses the Romans: “Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3).

By the second century, it’s common knowledge. Clement of Alexandria makes a passing comment to it when discussing the circumstances of Marks’ Gospel:

When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches, in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

The historical testimony for Peter in Rome is re-emphasized by the fact there are no competing traditions.

Second during these centuries there was a lot of political maneuvering and manipulation going on and thirdly why Rome? Would it have been because this city just so happens to be the capital of the secular powers that be at the time?

Not at all. Before Constantine, Christianity was largely underground. The primacy of Rome was hardly due to imperial meddling.

Why Rome? Well, why did Paul go to Rome? I’m sure for the evangelistic opportunity. Rome was the center of the known world. Regardless, both died there, and so Peter inevitably left his ministry there.

 

[truthlovingorthodox]

You are right I am fallible but my point was so are church fathers even if I am more so

 

[catholic1seeks]

So you assert. Anyone can assert something and use Scriptures to back it up. What, tens of thousands of denominations now? At least 5+ views on Baptism, the most basic of Christian rituals?

 

[setarcos]

As I said…speculation and opinion. Should we examine evidence such as Paul not mentioning Peter when writing to the Roman Church, Something absurd if Peter was its head, then its not likely. Political maneuvering in order to consolidate a power base is all it was. After all some in the early Church, a still struggling Church fighting for uniformity and acceptance would have seen a chance at establishing themselves as the leadership center by appealing to the secular powers that be to enforce acceptance of establishing Christianity’s leadership within its own capital in order to promote peace in the empire and establish endorsement from the secular leaderships powerbase. Pure politics right out of the secular handbook.