The infallable pope

[Peter_J]

Holy Orders.

I like it.

At the same time, though, we shouldn’t forget about the sensus fidelium.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Isa Almisry

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Why do you think the subset of the deposit of faith that is the bible is the authority who (which) decides the correctness of the election of a Pope and his infallibility?

How is the charism of “infallibility” conferred without a sacrament?​

What is the sacrament which confers infallibility?​

Holy Orders.

So, what is Isa Almisry asking? (Almisry, are you there? Hello?)

 

[churchcamefirst]

Clarify what started when Jesus rebuked Peter (btw, you say “spoke to his Apostles, giving Peter” your proof?) “Get behind me Satan! You (sing.) are an offense to Me, for you are not mindfull of the things of God, but of men”?

You can interpret it anyway you like. It is what it is.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Is it an official teaching of the Orthodox Churches that Peter once was Satan?

No, just that he was swayed by him (Satan) a couple times.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What is the sacrament which confers infallibility?

That’s my question. Holy Orders confers the charism of authority. Where does infallibility come from?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Holy Orders.

The pope is not ordained pope.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So, what is Isa Almisry asking? (Almisry, are you there? Hello?)

Sorry, I was at home at orthodoxchristianity.net for a while.

I am asking, infallibility is a charism/grace. I know of no other charism/grace not confered but by a sacrament. What is the sacrament of infallibility.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

That’s my question. Holy Orders confers the charism of authority. Where does infallibility come from?

From being the Pope.

There is no “conference” of infallibility.

It always existed as an attribute of the Pope, since Peter, but was only recognized explicitly as an attribute when it was.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You can interpret it anyway you like. It is what it is.

I like the way the Fathers interpret it. It is what it is.

 

[rinnie]

acts 15:7 After a long debate, PETER got up and said to them, Brethren, you KNOW that in early days GOD MADE HIS CHOICE ANONG US. that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the gospel and believe. unquote. Now all of the Apostles were sitting there, not one got up and disagreed with Peter. Which proves they knew he was the one God Picked to be the leader. Which today is the POPE!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

acts 15:7 After a long debate, PETER got up and said to them, Brethren, you KNOW that in early days GOD MADE HIS CHOICE ANONG US. that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the gospel and believe. unquote.

unquote?

The quote goes on:
And all the multitude held their peace: and they HEARD BARNABAS AND PAUL TELLING what great signs and wonders GOD HAD WROUGHT among the Gentiles BY THEM…

13 And after they had held their peace, JAMES answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear ME. 14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name. 15 And to this AGREE the words of the PROPHETS, as it is written:…19 For which cause, I [JAMES] JUDGE…

Now all of the Apostles were sitting there, not one got up and disagreed with Peter.

Or Barnabas, Or Paul. Or James.

Which proves they knew he was the one God Picked to be the leader.

St. James?

Which today is the POPE!

You mean the PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM! And as for Peter, the PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH.

 

[churchcamefirst]

Barnabas was not an Apostle. Neither was Paul.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Barnabas was not an Apostle. Neither was Paul.

So Paul was called an Apostle because he wasn’t?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Probably Church meant that St. Paul was not one of the Eleven (later Twelve after the succession of Matthias) Apostles who had known Jesus and been with Him in His ministry.

Certainly St. Paul was an apostle–the apostle to the Gentiles–but as certainly St. Paul notes himself that he was ‘last’ and ‘as one born out of time’ an apostle. Barnabas I do not think would have been considered an apostle–an associate, yes. But those who came ‘after’ the Eleven–and St. Paul–were not given the title of “apostle” (no, St. Timothy, St. Barnabas, even St. Linus and St. Ignatius etc. were not called ‘apostles’).

So while I agree that St. Paul was an apostle. . .St. Barnabas was not. Coupling St. Barnabas with St. Paul was, I believe, a masterstroke of the Holy Spirit in guiding the writing of this Scripture. For if only St. Paul had been mentioned there might well have been confusion of who spoke with the ‘supreme’ authority. Certainly St. James spoke with the ‘supreme’ authority of Jerusalem, as its bishop. Certainly St. Paul spoke with “supreme” authority for the Gentiles, as their bishop. And certainly St. Peter spoke with ‘supreme’ authority even over these two and all others, as Bishop of Rome and as the “head” of the Church, appointed by Christ.

Having St. Peter as ‘head’ is not only Scriptural, it is also absolutely and far more indicative of the marvelous paradox that Christianity is.

Consider St. Peter and St. Paul, as Scripture reveals them to us.

St. Paul comes across as far more of a ‘doer and shaker’. He writes more, he speaks more, he is ‘on fire’ for Christ. He would seem the epitome of the ‘leader’.

St. Peter is hasty, St. Peter betrayed Christ 3 times, St. Peter comes across often as being slow to think, hasty to act, not the kind of fellow you’d want ‘in charge’.

Paradoxically, for Christianity St. Peter was not only the ‘better’ choice as leader, he was the “Christian” choice. . .indeed, the choice of Christ specifically.

Even St. Paul tells us that Christ tells us “I am made most powerful in weakness”. Throughout history, God has chosen the people who seem least suited to the roles he gives them.

David the shepherd boy a KING?
Solomon the child WISEST MAN ON EARTH?
Abraham the old and childless the father of a nation no one could count?
Sarah at 90 a mother?
Mary, a poor young Jewish maiden the mother of the Lord?

St. Paul, a Pharisee by nature and training, far more suited to a ‘scholarly’ life in the Jewish tradition he had been steeped in. . .sent out, yes indeed to be a writer and scholar but despite his frail frame sent on constant long voyages, made to ‘speak’, often forced into hiding. Not the life he would have chosen or even that one would think he would be successful at, coming in to Christianity having to overcome the rancour of those whose loved ones he had persecuted even to their death.

And St. Peter. . .the fisherman, hasty, somewhat cowardly and blustering, not even ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’. . .in spite of all thus, given by Christ the task of being “the rock”, the keeper of the keys, the supreme authority and head of the Church.

Very paradoxical. And very Christian.

 

[w_stewart]

No, just that he was swayed by him (Satan) a couple times.

Therefore, your point is?

 

[churchcamefirst]

So Paul was called an Apostle because he wasn’t?

I guess so. Paul was NOT of the twelve chosen by Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

The reason I responded “I like it” to rinnie’s answer

Holy Orders.

is that a lot of people mistakenly see the Pope as having a monopoly on infallibility. When in fact all the bishops participate in the infallibility of the Church. (As for the sensus fidelium … well, I guess there’s no need to get into that.)

 

[SIA]

Because we see that you miss all the point that we answered. Your name not even mentioned in the bible, and yet you are still exist. No Protestant, Episcopalian, whatever denomination mentioned in the bible, and yet there are exist. You cannot explain this fact, but rather avoiding the issue. The same thing also about Trinity which was not mentioned in the bible, and yet all (except Mormon and JW) Christians accept it. You can not take the development of faith but rather make a self conclusion. Come on, that kind of thinking and logic can come only from the follower of Mr. M.

What in pratel are you talking about? Roman Catholic isn’t found anywhere in Scripture either but yet you claim to be the one true Church that Christ founded upon Peter. Now isn’t your whole statement really boiling in the pot that is calling the kettle black?

 

[rinnie]

unquote?

The quote goes on:
And all the multitude held their peace: and they HEARD BARNABAS AND PAUL TELLING what great signs and wonders GOD HAD WROUGHT among the Gentiles BY THEM…

13 And after they had held their peace, JAMES answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear ME. 14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name. 15 And to this AGREE the words of the PROPHETS, as it is written:…19 For which cause, I [JAMES] JUDGE…

quote

Or Barnabas, Or Paul. Or James.

St. James?

You mean the PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM! And as for Peter, the PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH.

You know who I mean the same Peter who God gave the keys to.
continue on to 15:14 Simon has told, ( you know the Simon I am taliking about the same Simon that Jesus changed his name to Peter,.

 

[rinnie]

The reason I responded “I like it” to rinnie’s answer

is that a lot of people mistakenly see the Pope as having a monopoly on infallibility. When in fact all the bishops participate in the infallibility of the Church. (As for the sensus fidelium … well, I guess there’s no need to get into that.)

Yes God did give all the Bishops the gift of the Holy Spirit, I never denied that. But he gave Peter and Peter only the Keys. The keys to the Kingdom. YOU ARE PETER, I AM SORRY HE DID NOT SAY YOU ARE MY APOSTLES HE SAID YOU ARE PETER, You cant change that, no matter how hard you try, you cant. Why did he ask Peter 3 Times feed my sheep, who feeds the sheep, the leader, Why did God say to Peter Feed my Sheep. He knew Peter loved him the most. St John:21:15 When therefore, they had breadfasted Jesus said to Simon Peter Simon Son of John dost thou love me more than these do? he said to him YES LORD THOU KNOWEST THAT I LOVE THEE HE SAID TO HIM FEED MY LAMBS.