Dominus vobiscum
First of all, I want to thank God that we have such a place to communicate and discuss our beliefs. May the Lord grant us civility and humility in this discussion.
AMEN!
We could
really do with more of that kind of thing!
As we have seen in many threads discussing the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, Catholics derive this doctrine from the power Christ bestowed on Peter in Matthew 16.
This power was also bestowed upon the rest of the disciples in
Matthew 18:18, which means that no exclusivity can be claimed on this basis: thus, all the disciples would then have been infallible, and yet Peter remained quite fallible even after this.
To me, this is the moment that Christ charges Peter with his role as the head of His Church. But, as we read in the Bible, Peter’s faith was sometimes weak. But Christ prayed that his faith would be the strength of many… Christ prayed that Peter’s faith would strengthen all of Christianity.
This is true, and interesting, and I had forgotten it. Thank you.
Christ’s three-fold command to Peter, as in John 21:17, instills Peter as the chief Shepherd after Jesus returns to the glory of Heaven
Actually, it installs Peter as **a/] shepherd. There is no mention in the text of any positioning within a pastoral hierarchy.
Peter and the other Apostles each were given the ability and authority at Pentacost to begin to create a Church in accordance with the commandment Christ gave to Peter. And that Church was protected, as Christ promised in John 16… The Holy Spirit was also sent, in John 14:26 … Christ also promised that the Church here on Earth would speak the Truth, would speak with the Lord’s voice, in Luke 10:16… The Gospels show us that Christ established an earthly Church with the power and the inerrancy of the Truth of Christ.
Well, the Gospels show us that Christ established an earthly Church, and that he bequeathed to that Church a considerable amount of teaching. They also show us that he vested salvation not in his Church, nor in the disciples, nor in his teaching, but in himself:
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
Jesus said to him, “
I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
Me." -
John 14:3-6
if my argument is pitiful, then sorry…I’m new
The argument is not a bad one, but you seemed to have strayed off-topic somewhat: you are arguing for the primacy of Peter, when papal infallibility is the question, and the one does not necessitate the other. Had Thomas been the first pope, popes could have been infallible; even though Peter was the leader of the disciples during Jesus’ ministry, popes could be fallible.
Now, I am not a Catholic
because of the doctrine of infallibility. While the Catholic Church teaches various things, such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which I am completely prepared to admit have some historical backing and could possibly be true, I cannot countenance the idea of claiming that the Church’s long-held belief in them proves them to be true. The same applies to any other doctrine.
Infallibility contradicts the most basic evidence we have: our own senses, which demonstrate to us every day how very fallible humans are, and how that fallibility is not removed by collecting humans into a group or allowing them to consider something for a long time.**
