I think that you misunderstand the term.but he is not infallible.
Infallibility does not mean everything that is thought or said is an infallible statement; it means that that which is Taught, through the Holy Spirit’s Guidance, is infallible Teaching.
I suppose he could say something and then decide it was not from the Holy Spirit. That which is from the Holy Spirit I suppose he will not doubt and all the church will agreeInfallibility does not mean everything that is thought or said is an infallible statement; it means that that which is Taught, through the Holy Spirit’s Guidance, is infallible Teaching.
I think that you’ve missed the boat!What made Peter a great apostle was that he is us.
Given that Jesus chose to separate him from the rest, it is reasonable that St. Peter’s relevancy does not depend upon twenty-first century analysis of what took place at the inception of the Church.31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (St. Luke 22)
15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. (St. John 21)
Where did you get this estimate of 50 years? The earliest reference associated with Peter in Rome I have been able to find has been around 170 to 180 C.E. in a letter from a Christian deacon named Gaius.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!
You must realize that both Peter and Paul, Paul especially, wrote many letters to various Church’s as a way of teaching them without being able to visit them. This was the custom of the New Testament Church. This is most likely what St. Ignatius was referencing, Pauls and Peters apostolic letters. St. Antioch is addressing the Roman church in a letter in the context of Peter and Pauls commands in letters. There is a direct correlation. Incidentally why would St. Antioch have to point out he was not commanding the Roman Church as Peter and Paul did? This would have been a curious thing to say if both he and the Roman Church were aware that the Roman Church was the seat and head of all the Christian Church’s in authority? And why address the Church in Rome as…“to the church that is in charge of affairs in Roman quarters…” if that Church was the agreed upon seat of authority in charge of all Christian quarters?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).
There are no competing traditions by this time because there was no early traditions of Peter founding the Roman Church to begin with. This was new. This was probably considered at the time inconsequential speculation unimportant to more pressing matters until such time as some saw fit to use Peter for their own gain.The historical testimony for Peter in Rome is re-emphasized by the fact there are no competing traditions.
You really need to brush up on your early Christian history. The early Christian Church was in such turmoil amongst itself with competing factions that when Constantine got involved it was mainly to keep these contentious bickering’s from endangering the peace of his empire.Not at all. Before Constantine, Christianity was largely underground. The primacy of Rome was hardly due to imperial meddling.
A good point and an example of who we are. Yes Simon Peter had his human failures and I’m sure Simon Peter sought Jesus out with what he thought was his whole heart, yet he didn’t in his denial of Jesus and Jesus uses Peter to speak to us about our own good intentions. We may tell ourselves we seek Jesus wholeheartedly, but do we? Its a constant battle…a never ending journey until his return. I suspect Jesus singled Peter out from the rest of the apostles in those verses you quoted because Jesus was speaking directly to all of us. Peter is everyman. Peter is singled out because Peter denied Jesus and is being used as hope and inspiration for us all. God is wise beyond measure!!it was Simon Peter who sought Jesus out with all of his heart
So God has Revealed Himself through Creation but He has not limited His Revelation to only Creation; further, through His direct Divine intervention He Calls us to Salvation and even Sacrifices Himself (the Incarnate Word) to breach the gap between man and God!12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. 14 He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. (St. John 16)