Papal Infallibility Roundtable

[dcointin]

Hi, Dcointin,

I have been reading this exchange with serious interest - but, really, this response does not make any sense.

The Holy Spirit has yet to write one word to establish His position on any topic. So, if you claim that there is no formal authority by which we can be absolutely certain - then we are centain about nothing. And we can trace this total uncertainty you claim exists from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican II.

If you disagree with the Council of Chalcedon, is this the same as saying that Christ had one nature?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

What I’m attempting to convey is that the only absolute certainty we can have regarding Christian doctrine comes from the inner certitude of faith which comes through the Holy Spirit. The sources of doctrine such as the rule of faith, scripture, tradition, liturgy, councils, fathers, etc. are normative for us, and is is through these that we answer controversies in doctrine and practice. What I mean by the phrase that there “is no formal authority” is that there is no external mechanism through which we can be absolutely guaranteed of the truth, in contrast to what I see as the Catholic belief that there is and must be. For example, we might say that the decrees of the Council of Nicea are authoritative, but why? Because they have been accepted by the Church as orthodox, i.e. in full agreement with apostolic tradition. This council however was not viewed as “ecumenical” until the Council of Constantinople in 381 after the Church had time to reflect on and accept it. There was no certain mechanism that guaranteed it that status, such as its reception by the Pope, that it was called by the emperor, attended by many bishops etc., these are witnesses to its ecumenicity, but did not determine it strictly speaking. I think this is a significant difference between our churches which is relevant to the discussion on papal infallibility. As another example, take the reception of the Tome of Leo by the Council of Chalcedon. Orthodox would say it was accepted because it agreed with the apostolic tradition, while Catholics would say it was orthodox because it was promulgated by the Pope. Do you see the difference?

My point about the Council of Chalcedon in my previous post was that people rejected it for different reasons, including a misunderstanding of its Christology, which has become apparent in ecumenical dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. Not everyone that rejected it was a monophysite, and I would say that the Oriental Orthodox Church is not monophysite, which is also the opinion of most Eastern Orthodox scholars. My priest for example communes them without any question as to their orthodoxy.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OrthodoxJosh,

I was really taken by surprise by your resposne - it appears that the Protestants copied this error almost word for word! And, you see what this has turned into with them …

Here is something you may find of interest:

**"Bishop Fulton Sheen Describes it very well. There are 3 basic ways Jesus could have organized his Church:

1.Democracy (Everybody votes and the idea with the most votes wins)
2.Aristocracy (A group of elders get together and prayerfully make a decision on behalf of the people)
3.Theocracy (Built on one person who leads the others who provide (name removed by moderator)ut but who defer to their leader)
Jesus asked the apostles “Who the they say that I am?” (Mat 16:13) He was referring to the general people, their democratic voice. They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” In other words, no unity, no certitude. Leave the government to the people and you get no unity.

Then he appealed to the aristocracy, the apostles, but there was no answer, (Thomas doubted, Judas was in money, Philip was troubled about relations with the heavenly father.) Jesus could not build his Church on an aristocracy alone.

At this point one man comes forward without the consent of the others. It is Peter, who says “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It is the right answer. Here was one man, divinely illuminated, speaking for all, who confesses the divinity of Christ, who is to be chosen as the leader of the Church. This is the Theocratic form of the Church that Catholics believe Jesus chose. This is what God did when he chose Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses etc… Jesus is the big rock, and Peter is a little rock, acting on behalf of Christ on earth, giving the keys to him."**http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

I guess I am wondering about the ECF that accepted and defended the Bishop of Rome - the Successor of Peter - as the Vicar of Christ on earth… and not the Patriarch of Antioch or anywhere else. Doesn’t this break with Sacred Tradition cause a problem?

God bless

Let’s take a look at a few verses up to Matthew 16:18: 16:13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I, and most other Orthodox read this as Christ saying that it is Peter’s statement in verse 16 that is the rock upon which Christ built His Church. At the same time, I believe that Peter himself had a very specific and special mission among the Apostles, but that it was Peter’s mission only, and was not communicated to any other bishop after him. If it was, then why wouldn’t the Patriarch of Antioch hold the same Petrine office as you believe the Pope of Rome does, since Peter was a bishop in Antioch before coming to Rome. At the same time, I don’t think that the humble fisherman from palestine who denied Christ, and then went on to preach him throughout the mediteranean would have ever accepted the status that the bishop of rome accepts as his due today. The confusion comes because some read that Christ is calling Peter the “rock”, since in greek “Petros” literally means rock, and is also translated as “Peter”. Remember, his name was Cephas, and that also meant stone. But again, we believe that it was his confession of Christ as the Son of God that is the rock on which the Church was built, because that is the center of our faith, not Peter. If Christ is not the Son of God then we are lost, but the same cannot be said if Peter were not the rock. Hope that helps!

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!

 

[Aramis]

ß3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.
From Canon 333 of The Hierarchical Constitution of the Church

Such items (judgements and declarations) are judicial and disciplinary, but do not bind later popes. They are not generic terms in the same way as “normal” english, and certainly don’t apply to dogmatic declarations attempted without consulting the bishops - the following pope very well could make a just case that it was illicit, and nullify it. That hasn’t been overtly needed, either, since the declaration of infallibility.

Then again, by comparison to Eastern Othodoxy, that is still extremely strong. In the EO written works even the idea that infallibility attaches to the acts of anything other than the first 7 councils seems anathematized. Nothing is without recourse save the actions of the Sobor - the combined council of the laity and clergy - at least in the works coming out of the Russian tradition (Nikonian Recension).

And while I generally trust the hierarchs, I definitely don’t have the same level of trust in allowing the laity voice in council, let alone vote…

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

This is a Catholic web site. Not a “Universal” website. It’s not called Universal Answers, It’s Catholic Answers for a reason. Besides, I think Catholics know what is meant by Catholic on a Catholic website. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

Good

I can make my case, however, what does that say about “Orthodox” then?

I merely made a comment to a point, you obviously thought was important to make. That’s all it was.

The Church throughout antiquity was called both Catholic (Universal), and Orthodox. Orthodox comes from the greek meaning Correct Belief/Right Worship. This term was adopted by the Church Universal to denote the orthodox believers from the non-orthodox/heretics. And we in the Orthodox Church still refer to ourselves as Orthodox-Catholic, as oppposed to papal catholic. A little respect is always appreciated, even though as the chief among sinners I don’t deserve it.

I understand what you are saying about the use of “catholic” on this webiste denoting the church in communion with, and under the authority of the pope of Rome. But I too, am Catholic, even though I am not your type of catholic. And your church in fact confirms this. Thank you, brother, for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

If it was Simon’s statement alone there, that triggered Jesus response to him, renaming him to Rock, giving him the keys to the kingdom, binding and loosing etc, why didn’t Jesus do the same earlier for all the apostles, when THEY said pretty much the same thing Simon did ?

I was asked a question to answer from my perspective. Sorry if you don’t like it.

Matthew 14:32-33: "And when they [Jesus and Peter] got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.****’”

Did Jesus say at this point to the apostles…STOP the presses!!! Do you guys realize what you just said? From now on guys, I’m changing all your names to… etc etc etc. But Jesus didn’t do that did He? No.

Didn’t you talk about “sacred Tradition” earlier? Are you NOW going to toss “sacred Tradition” overboard?

Where do you see that I am “tossing Sacred Tradition overboard?”

Good question. Antioch was always counted either 3rd or 4th down the list of sees from Rome. Why no special understanding for Antioch even among the Orthodox? The answer is, Antioch didn’t hold Peter. He went to Rome. Also, popes ordain bishops in their pontificates. That doesn’t make the ones they ordain a pope, or make them his successor.

Historically, the earliest listing of sees went like this

1. 
   *]Rome
   *]Alexandria
   *]Antioch
   *]Jerusalem
   
   When Constantinople came along in the 4th century the numbering changed
   1. 
      *]Rome
      *]Constantinople
      *]Alexandria
      *]Antioch
      *]Jerusalem
      
      Petros is Greek Cephas is Aramaic. Cephas is Rock.
      
      This is precisely what I said.
      
      It had to be more than his confession. And since God selected him to be the leader of the apostles ergo the Church, this is an article of faith ALSO to believe what God did and is doing through this office HE established, 1st held by Peter.

1. 1. 
      There is only one name under heaven by which man can be saved, and that name is Jesus, not Peter.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

Hi, OrthodoxJosh,

I was really taken by surprise by your resposne - it appears that the Protestants copied this error almost word for word! And, you see what this has turned into with them …

Here is something you may find of interest:

**"Bishop Fulton Sheen Describes it very well. There are 3 basic ways Jesus could have organized his Church:

1.Democracy (Everybody votes and the idea with the most votes wins)
2.Aristocracy (A group of elders get together and prayerfully make a decision on behalf of the people)
3.Theocracy (Built on one person who leads the others who provide (name removed by moderator)ut but who defer to their leader)
Jesus asked the apostles “Who the they say that I am?” (Mat 16:13) He was referring to the general people, their democratic voice. They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” In other words, no unity, no certitude. Leave the government to the people and you get no unity.

Then he appealed to the aristocracy, the apostles, but there was no answer, (Thomas doubted, Judas was in money, Philip was troubled about relations with the heavenly father.) Jesus could not build his Church on an aristocracy alone.

At this point one man comes forward without the consent of the others. It is Peter, who says “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It is the right answer. Here was one man, divinely illuminated, speaking for all, who confesses the divinity of Christ, who is to be chosen as the leader of the Church. This is the Theocratic form of the Church that Catholics believe Jesus chose. This is what God did when he chose Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses etc… Jesus is the big rock, and Peter is a little rock, acting on behalf of Christ on earth, giving the keys to him."**http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

I guess I am wondering about the ECF that accepted and defended the Bishop of Rome - the Successor of Peter - as the Vicar of Christ on earth… and not the Patriarch of Antioch or anywhere else. Doesn’t this break with Sacred Tradition cause a problem?

God bless

What break with Sacred Tradition??? And, where does Christ say that the Peter’s successors would also hold the keys to the Kingdom. We Orthodox are far from Protestant, but perhaps the protestants were right in taking our view of this particular few verses of Scripture. Also, if Peter were infallible then why at the First council in Jerusalem, where Peter was the one who thought the gentiles should become jews before becoming Christians, he was wrong in that Eccumenical council. So he was not infallible. So when did he recieve his infalliliblity? I only gave you the opinion you asked for.

 

[hazcompat]

What break with Sacred Tradition??? And, where does Christ say that the Peter’s successors would also hold the keys to the Kingdom. We Orthodox are far from Protestant, but perhaps the protestants were right in taking our view of this particular few verses of Scripture. Also, if Peter were infallible then why at the First council in Jerusalem, where Peter was the one who thought the gentiles should become jews before becoming Christians, he was wrong in that Eccumenical council. So he was not infallible. So when did he recieve his infalliliblity? I only gave you the opinion you asked for.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,819 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, *
abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Hoe do you define presides?

peace*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, OrthodoxJosh,

Maybe this will help…

So we are all on the same page, here is something on Sacred Tradition:

** What’s the difference between material and formal sufficiency? It is the difference between having a big enough pile of bricks to build a house and having a house of bricks. Catholic teaching says written Sacred Tradition (known as Scripture) is materially sufficient: all the bricks necessary to build its doctrines are there in Scripture. But because some things in Scripture are implicit rather than explicit, other stuff besides Scripture has been handed down from the apostles. This other stuff is unwritten Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks of the written Tradition together in the right order and position) and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God. **

And, the link it comes from: mark-shea.com/tradition.html

As I see it, several of the Early Church Fathers recognized the successor of Peter as the Head of the Cathoilic Church - both in the West and the East.

Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus identifed the chief Bishop of Rome and Irenaeus even listed the popes from Peter to Pope Victor I. These Early Church Fathers gave early evidence that there was a successor to Peter.

I think you have misread the account of the Council of Jerusalem on who was in charge - as we read in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas brought the matter forward, Peter made the decision and James said, “I agree!” Here is the text:

1* Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers,a “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice,b you cannot be saved.”* 2Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question. 3They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. 4When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them. 5But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”

6* The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. 7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.c 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.d 9He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.e 10Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?f 11On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”* 12The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

13* After they had fallen silent, James responded, “My brothers, listen to me. 14Symeon* has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:

16‘After this I shall returnh and rebuild the fallen hut of David; from its ruins I shall rebuild it
and raise it up again, 17so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord, even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked. Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things, 18known from of old.’ 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.

Hre is the reference witht eh footnotes: usccb.org/bible/acts/15

Peter was guided by the Holy Spirit to make this decision - but, his infallibility did not mean he was without fault. Peter seemed to the champion for human failings - probably the best example (after Peter’s denial of Christ x 3) is that in Matt 16 - no sooner had Christ given Peter the Keys (note: there were not 11 additonal sets of keys handed out at this time or any other time) Peter tries to correct Christ - and Christ calls Peter a devil! You can not go wrong in picking out the faults in Peter … but, in no way does this remove the leadership position that Christ gave him.

Concering the Protestants adoption of the Orthodox position of Peter not being the Head of the Catholic Church - this may be more an example of the effects of bad example than of proper leadership.

God bless

What break with Sacred Tradition??? And, where does Christ say that the Peter’s successors would also hold the keys to the Kingdom. We Orthodox are far from Protestant, but perhaps the protestants were right in taking our view of this particular few verses of Scripture. Also, if Peter were infallible then why at the First council in Jerusalem, where Peter was the one who thought the gentiles should become jews before becoming Christians, he was wrong in that Eccumenical council. So he was not infallible. So when did he recieve his infalliliblity? I only gave you the opinion you asked for.

 

[Mickey]

**For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. **

St Iakovos (James) was the head of the Council of Jerusalem…not St Peter.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

The focus of this forum is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage.

Using terms like Orthodox Catholic or Catholic Orthodox to refer to one’s affiliation when that church is outside of communion with Rome can be confusing and potentially scandalous in this venue especially when combined with non-Catholic content. That is what our forum guidelines restrict.

If you have any questions or concerns, please write me privately. The conversation will now return to the topic of papal infallibility.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[jwinch2]

The next time you’re defending Old Rome around here, try making an argument that doesn’t begin with “think of this particular word in terms of these other words.”

So much specious sophistry! This word means that word means this word means that word.

I’m all for nuance, but this card gets played every time. “It doesn’t mean what it appears to mean!”

I’m having a bit of a hard time here so I have three specific questions.

1. Do you agree or disagree that when you translate from one language (Latin) to another (English), that meanings can be changed unintentionally and thus, views distorted?
2. Are you suggesting that use and understanding of words do not change over time which can, on occasion, create errors in interpretation to those who have not studied writings in their proper context?
3. Do you agree or disagree that cherry picking lines out of documents such as the Catechism, or the Code of Canon Law rather than studying them in their appropriate context can lead to misinterpretation?

If you disagree with above, then I have to say that I would love to see a discussion/debate on interpretation of Sacred Scripture between an Orthodox and a Protestant biblical scholar. The conversation isn’t going to go too far if variations in translation and changing utilization of words isn’t going to be an admissible argument. Frankly, I have never seen a situation where one language translates perfectly into another, particularly in situations where the languages in question have different roots.

In addition, unless things are radically different in Orthodox teachings on Sacred Scripture from what I have seen and read, a common issue when discussing the Bible with Protestants is the cherry picking of individual passages and over-generalizing them, rather than interpreting things in the context of the whole. If that argument isn’t going to be admissible either, again, things aren’t going very far.

Finally, I would love to see a discussion between an Orthodox Christian and an atheist if the idea of context could not be brought into play when answering the question of apparent contradictions, particularly when discussing the creation accounts in Genesis.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

Just read Acts 15 and see that it is Peter - not James - who makes the decision. It is really is as simple at that. Then we have the Early Church Fathers that acknowledged the Successor of Peter giving us a continuity of history.

God bless

For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

St Iakovos (James) was the head of the Council of Jerusalem…not St Peter.

 

[Mickey]

Just read Acts 15 and see that it is Peter - not James - who makes the decision.

No…please read it again. It does not say that James agrees with Peter’s judgement. It does not say that James and Peter make the judgement.

St James says: For which cause I judge…

 

[steve_b]

For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

St Iakovos (James) was the head of the Council of Jerusalem…not St Peter.

Mickey,

James is the bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter, that’s true. And it is also true, that the reason for the council is because Judaizers from James party were causing trouble for gentile converts. This issue needed to be settled and James obviously couldn’t settle this issue himself with his own people or it wouldn’t have taken a council…true? So,*** What was the “cause”*** of James judgement that settled the matter? After all the discussion took place, Peter stood up and gave his answer. Peter ended the debate. James implemented Peter’s decision. What role did Peter play in this? Pope

As Chrysostom said, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer thatHe (Jesus) appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.(Chrysostom, In John. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

 

[Mickey]

After all the discussion took place, James implemented Peter’s decision. What role did Peter play in this?

All had a say in it…St James, St Peter, St Barnabas, St Paul. It was a council. St James made the final judgement.

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.

---

As Chrysostom said, ’How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer thatHe appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.(Chrysostom, In John. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

St John uses that type of language liberally…regarding other apostles also.

St John Chrysosotom
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now

St John** Chrysostom**
The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere

---

 

[steve_b]

St John uses that type of language liberally…regarding other apostles also.

okay, we’ll discount all that “liberal” language talk.

The point is,

What did James do at the council…right?

• He repeated what Peter had already said. And made the decision based on what Peter said.
• For reasons of his own James added to what Peter said, instructions that had some judaizing elements (requirements about not eating meat sacrificed to idols, not consuming blood).
• What happened with Peter’s part of the decision? It became the law of the Church.
• What happened to James’s additions at that council? In 1 Corinthians 8, written well after the council, Paul taught that whether one eats meat which has been sacrificed to idols is purely a prudential judgment.

We see Peter’s role here as pope.

 

[Mickey]

And made the decision based on what Peter said.

No. St James listened to them all…added to the discussion…and then made the judgement. It is plain to see in the reading and cannot be spun any other way.

We see Peter’s role here as pope.

Huh?

 

[Cavaradossi]

okay, we’ll discount all that “liberal” language talk.

The point is,

What did James do at the council…right?

• He repeated what Peter had already said. And made the decision based on what Peter said.
• For reasons of his own James added to what Peter said, instructions that had some judaizing elements (requirements about not eating meat sacrificed to idols, not consuming blood).
• What happened with Peter’s part of the decision? It became the law of the Church.
• What happened to James’s additions at that council? In 1 Corinthians 8, written well after the council, Paul taught that whether one eats meat which has been sacrificed to idols is purely a prudential judgment.

We see Peter’s role here as pope.

[BIBLEDRB]acts 15:28[/BIBLEDRB]
Why even bother to mention the Holy Spirit and ‘us’ if Peter were vested with such authority? This seems a bit like some sort of revisionist history: reading anachronistic papal prerogatives into a situation where there clearly were none to be exercised, as the ‘office’ of the papacy did not yet exist.

 

[tqualey]

Keep your shirt on, Mickey…

Using a size 5 pitch is serious… and…for which cause I judge you meant to make sure I read what you wrote. So, what is my judgment …?

The part you seem to miss is that Peter makes the actual decision… and you can read this in Acts 15:7-12.

James chimes in at Acts 15:19-20 with, “Yeah, I agree…and by the way, I think we should tack these things on, too!” Note that Paul later on just ignores these items from James

Really, I am not arguing with you - the material and in the sequence necessary for determining who is making the decision - is laid out for you to read. If you don’t agree … fine. But, you will have to do more then increase your pitch next time - it will actually take soome docutmentation that you have yet to present.

God bless

No…please read it again. It does not say that James agrees with Peter’s judgement. It does not say that James and Peter make the judgement.

St James says: For which cause I judge…

 

[dcointin]

One thing that Catholics should keep in mind when discussing Peter and the papacy with Eastern Orthodox is that we accept that Peter was the “corypheus” or “choir leader” of the apostles, which is to say he was the head or chief apostle. What we disagree with is the idea that he exercised authority over them, or that his personal prerogatives passed to the bishop of Rome.