Scholar8200:
Do reconcile your interpretation with:

Ephesians 2:20
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

my dear there is nothing to reconcile, Jesus was sent by the father, he sent his apostles, Jesus is d chief sherpherd d gave peter and other d duty to tend d flock, Jesus is d chief cornerstone and he appointed peter as rock and built upon d foundation of d apostles. As he left d world he gave d administration of d church to d apostler.
Nothing is contradictory, i've gat nothing to reconcile.

Ubenedictus:

lol, please read d passage above again. Men can be infallible when under d influence of d inerrant holy spirit. Paul was infallible when he wrote romans, corithian, eph...etc, peter was infallible when he wrote d epistles of peter.
If u dont agree wit d above dat mean ur bible is fallible.

The apostles were so sure they possesed infallibility that they commanded the early christians not to accept any tin different frm what they were taught even if an angel came down to teach it. Dat means d apostles certianly believe that theis teaching were without error.

Or do u think they taught errors and still admonished d earlx xtians not to accept anything different?

Wrong! Peter erred at a point and Paul admonished him.

*[[Mat 18:1]] At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
*[[Mat 18:18-20/KJV]] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Read in context and consider the succeeding versus. Was he talking to all believes or not? Whatsoever ye bind, where two of you are gathered, if two of u shall agree etc

Bobbysworld28:

Still laughable and comical.
He has his Holy Spirit sent to us, he CANNOT abdicate his role, ok?

nobody said he abdicated stop argueing against a strawman.

Bobbysworld28:

Wrong! Peter erred at a point and Paul admonished him.

infallibity is abt teaching, not whether someone sinned or was a hypocrite. Now my question, where did Peter TEACH error?

Ubenedictus:
my dear there is nothing to reconcile, Jesus was sent by the father, he sent his apostles, Jesus is d chief sherpherd d gave peter and other d duty to tend d flock,

Good. Then it is wrong to single out one as the 'universal head' or 'rock' on which the Church was built! There were many as Peter admonished and Paul also did:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you
1 Peter 5:1,2a

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:28
Here Paul was not even speaking to Apostles!

Jesus is d chief cornerstone and he appointed peter as rock and built upon d foundation of d apostles.

Here is an effective distortion of Ephesians 2;20! The apostles and prophets are the foundation all resting on the Chief Cornerstone - Jesus Christ!
Whence did you get Peter is a rock on which the foundation of the apostles?

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinth 3:11

[quote author=Scholar8200 post=40006127] Pls show chapter and verse in book of Acts where your claim happened![/QUOTE] ACT 15:7, it show that the was a heated debate in d council, peter stood up and spoke, after dat the arguement ended, nobody raised any objection again.

James made the Spirit inspired declaration and all the apostles and elders, one of which was Peter, agreed to it.

Acts 15:13,22,23
13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me[b]:
22 [b]Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church[b], to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 and they wrote letters by them after this manner;

[b]The apostles and elders and brethren[b] send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Pls study carefully before making assertions, we are on air!

you forgot this passage
act 15:14
[b]simon has just explained

put simply even james conclusion was based upon the unobjected conclusion of peter.

Ubenedictus:
ACT 15:7, it show that the was a heated debate in d council, peter stood up and spoke, after dat the arguement ended, nobody raised any objection again.


you forgot this passage
act 15:14
simon has just explained

put simply even james conclusion was based upon the unobjected conclusion of peter.

The problem I was trying to address was the error brought up by Jolliano. Besides, Peter spoke (vs 7), Paul and Barnabas also spoke (in vs 12) and James drew the conclusion. No superiority here!!!

It is instructive that:
1. The Holy Spirit superintended the meeting and was given the recognition and Priority in mention Acts 15:28

2. The guidance was subjected to Scriptural test before adoption:
Acts 15:15,16
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

3. Hence no teaching can supersede/substitute or stand at par in authority with the Scriptures

accountable:
@ joliano
Read
Luk 22:24] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
On the night Jesus was arrested there was strife among the apostles who the greatest should be. The apostles obviously did not understand that their was any 'pope'

Being the GREATEST is a matter of PERSONAL ability and achievement while the HEAD(POPE) is a matter of God's grace and Spirit. When David was chosen to be the King of Israel, was he the greatest in Israel?

An argument about who was the greatest is not the same as who is the HEAD? You're assuming that if Peter was the Pope, then he must have been the greatest and the two are unrelated. The head of a family doesn't have to be the greatest person in the family.

Scholar8200:
Good. Then it is wrong to single out one as the 'universal head' or 'rock' on which the Church was built! There were many as Peter admonished and Paul also did:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you
1 Peter 5:1,2a

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:28
Here Paul was not even speaking to Apostles!

my dear, what is said of peter singularly is repeated for d apostles and even d church leaders generally. So yes, they do share authority bt even at that peter is shown as foremost in the excercise of d auuhority for d whole church.

Here is an effective distortion of Ephesians 2;20! The apostles and prophets are the foundation all resting on the Chief Cornerstone - Jesus Christ!
Whence did you get Peter is a rock on which the foundation of the apostles?

11 []For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ[].
1 Corinth 3:11

did i say d bolded?

accountable:


But herein we differ. That I will stay with the word and will not believe my pastor if he teaches contrary to the truth. But u will believe whatever ur pope says ex cathedra

THANK GOD YOU MADE THIS STATEMENT.

IF YOUR CHURCH HAS MORE THAN ONE PASTOR, THEN AMONGST THEM THERE WILL BE A PASTOR IN CHARGE(DISTRICT SUPERIOR or GENERAL OVERSEER), RIGHT?

BUT YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS BUILT HIS CHURCH WITH TWELVE APOSTLE AND DID NOT HAVE/PLACE ANY APOSTLE IN CHARGE.

I THINK YOU SHOULD RE-EVALUATE YOUR LOGIC.

Now to the issue of ex cathedra.
The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2). That tradition comes down to us orally through the Bishops who are the succesors of the Apostles (Through The Divine Unbroken Apostolic Succession) and universally(Catholic means Universal) through the Pope(the Head of the Bishops).

even the early christians who read the bible and chose the books that were true understood this.

Jolliano:


Being the GREATEST is a matter of PERSONAL ability and achievement while the HEAD(POPE) is a matter of God's grace and Spirit. When David was chosen to be the King of Israel, was he the greatest in Israel?

An argument about who was the greatest is not the same as who is the HEAD? You're assuming that if Peter was the Pope, then he must have been the greatest and the two are unrelated. The head of a family doesn't have to be the greatest person in the family.

*[[Luk 22:24-27/KJV]] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Read again sir, this has nothing to do with ability. U don't need ability to sit on a seat, be a king or exercise authority. It's talking about leadership, sir.

Jolliano:


THANK GOD YOU MADE THIS STATEMENT.

IF YOUR CHURCH HAS MORE THAN ONE PASTOR, THEN AMONGST THEM THERE WILL BE A PASTOR IN CHARGE(DISTRICT SUPERIOR or GENERAL OVERSEER), RIGHT?

BUT YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS BUILT HIS CHURCH WITH TWELVE APOSTLE AND DID NOT HAVE/PLACE ANY APOSTLE IN CHARGE.

I THINK YOU SHOULD RE-EVALUATE YOUR LOGIC.

Now to the issue of ex cathedra.
The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2). That tradition comes down to us orally through the Bishops who are the succesors of the Apostles (Through The Divine Unbroken Apostolic Succession) and universally(Catholic means Universal) through the Pope(the Head of the Bishops).

even the early christians who read the bible and chose the books that were true understood this.

I cannot see what u r thanking God for. The freedom to live by Gods word was taken away from u in 1870 when the catholic church officially pronounced that the pope is infallible, and u r thanking God? Before then u had a choice, u could choose what to believe us not without been called a heretic.

The traditions u r talking about is only a decption. It is not the same as the tradition mentioned in scripture neither are they in the same context

Scholar8200:

The problem I was trying to address was the error brought up by Jolliano. Besides, Peter spoke (vs 7), Paul and Barnabas also spoke (in vs 12) and James drew the conclusion. No superiority here!!!

there are a few point u are negleting, d arguement originated in churches under paul he couldnt settle it, d debate became heated nobody jumped in to end it but Peter. After he spoke no one objected. notice,
1. Peter uses the
first person personal prounoun in the plural. "We believe..." Peter does not speak just for himself. He speaks for all.
2. When James stands up to speak, the first thing he says after getting the attention of the Council is, “Symeon has related…” In other words, Peter has spoken… He repeats what Peter has already said definitively. Then, rather than speaking for all, St. James says, "It is my
judgment...".
3. When St. James gives his pastoral judgment, in verse 19, his judgment was that the Church ought to bind the Gentiles
to four laws:
... abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.
But notice what happens
immediately thereafter, in verses 22-28:
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders,... We
have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.”
Three sub-points:
1. When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew
16:15-19).
2. When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the
troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is
depicted in a collegial manner. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18.
Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled
churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given
the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council

Scholar8200:

The problem I was trying to address was the error brought up by Jolliano. Besides, Peter spoke (vs 7), Paul and Barnabas also spoke (in vs 12) and James drew the conclusion. No superiority here!!!

It is instructive that:
1. The Holy Spirit superintended the meeting and was given the recognition and Priority in mention Acts 15:28

2. The guidance was subjected to Scriptural test before adoption:
Acts 15:15,16
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

3. Hence no teaching can supersede/substitute or stand at par in authority with the Scriptures

When the prophets were speaking for God in the OT, did they take the place of God or were they the means through which God communicated to Israel?
Were their words seen as different from Scripture(the books of the law which was all they had) or were their words simply the explanation of the application of that law to the current state of life?

If the bible is infallible, what does it say about the CHURCH and COUNCIL that compiled it?
Jesus instituted a teaching Church not a writing CHURCH. The bible is a written means of teaching and it is not the only means of teaching. The bible also needs to be interpreted and that interpretation lies with the Church and Her Apostles not anyone with a bible and a dictionary.

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. -2 Peter 1:20-21

accountable:


I cannot see what u r thanking God for. The freedom to live by Gods word was taken away from u in 1870 when the catholic church officially pronounced that the pope is infallible, and u r thanking God? Before then u had a choice, u could choose what to believe us not without been called a heretic.

The traditions u r talking about is only a decption. It is not the same as the tradition mentioned in scripture neither are they in the same context

LOL. IN 1870?

HERE'S SAINT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, A DIRECT DISCIPLE OF SAINT JOHN THE BELOVED

Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Cyprian of Carthage:
"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Ubenedictus:

there are a few point u are negleting, d arguement originated in churches under paul he couldnt settle it, d debate became heated nobody jumped in to end it but Peter. After he spoke no one objected. notice,
1. Peter uses the
first person personal prounoun in the plural. "We believe..." Peter does not speak just for himself. He speaks for all.
2. When James stands up to speak, the first thing he says after getting the attention of the Council is, “Symeon has related…” In other words, Peter has spoken… He repeats what Peter has already said definitively. Then, rather than speaking for all, St. James says, "It is my
judgment...".
3. When St. James gives his pastoral judgment, in verse 19, his judgment was that the Church ought to bind the Gentiles
to four laws:
... abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.
But notice what happens
immediately thereafter, in verses 22-28:
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders,... We
have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.”
Three sub-points:
1. When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew
16:15-19).
2. When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the
troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is
depicted in a collegial manner. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18.
Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled
churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given
the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council

When James said 'simon had related' he spoke in reference to happened at the house of Cornelius ( how God at first did visit the gentiles) not what peter had just spoken . he was not in any way acknowledging peters authority.

Jolliano:


LOL. IN 1870?

HERE'S SAINT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, A DIRECT DISCIPLE OF SAINT JOHN THE BELOVED

Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

U r derailing, the doctrine of papal infallibility was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870. The writing of Ignatius do not qualify as scripture do they?

Jolliano:
Cyprian of Carthage:
"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Scripture not Cyprian. The two are not the same.

Scholar8200:

It is instructive that:
1. The Holy Spirit superintended the meeting and was given the recognition and Priority in mention Acts 15:28

it is interesting dat u note this point. D apostles nd elders had a council were there was heated argument, and at the end they wrotd 'it seem gud to d holyspirit and to us...' they belive their heated council was led by d spirit and thus had d power to make laws for d church. Pretty interesting

2. The guidance was subjected to Scriptural test before adoption:
Acts 15:15,16
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

3. Hence no teaching can supersede/substitute or stand at par in authority with the Scriptures

lol, cant u see that d passage that was quoted has nothing to do wit d eating of unclean animals and circumcision, d passage has no link to d laws dat were made. The bible shows us where those laws come from. Act 15:8-11 it was based on peter teaching not to lay any burder on them based on his xperience dat they had been saved and have d spirit. Both peter and paul in acts 15 related personal experiences not scripture.
The laws made in Jerusalem certainly had the traditions (teaching) of some apostle even witout outright scriptural backing.

Jolliano:


LOL. IN 1870?

HERE'S SAINT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, A DIRECT DISCIPLE OF SAINT JOHN THE BELOVED

Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

The First Vatican Council (Latin: Concilium Vaticanum Primum) was convoked by Pope Pius IX on 29 June 1868, after a period of planning and preparation that began on 6 December 1864.[1] This twentieth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church,[2] held three centuries after the Council of Trent, opened on 8 December 1869 and adjourned on 20 October 1870.[1] Unlike the five earlier General Councils held in Rome, which met in the Lateran Basilica and are known as Lateran Councils, it met in the Vatican Basilica, hence its name. Its best-known decision is its definition of papal infallibility, strongly promoted by the Archibishop Luigi Natoli.

accountable:

I cannot see what u r thanking God for. The freedom to live by Gods word was taken away from u in 1870 when the catholic church officially pronounced that the pope is infallible, and u r thanking God? Before then u had a choice, u could choose what to believe us not without been called a heretic.

the truth of God are not issues for pick and chose. You either believe or u don't. Wen u reject that which is true and teach sumtin diffeqent then u are a heretic.
And that didnt start in d 18th century

The traditions u r talking about is only a decption. It is not the same as the tradition mentioned in scripture neither are they in the same context

so all the early christians wrote wrote after d apostles wer liars?

accountable:


The First Vatican Council (Latin: Concilium Vaticanum Primum) was convoked by Pope Pius IX on 29 June 1868, after a period of planning and preparation that began on 6 December 1864.[1] This twentieth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church,[2] held three centuries after the Council of Trent, opened on 8 December 1869 and adjourned on 20 October 1870.[1] Unlike the five earlier General Councils held in Rome, which met in the Lateran Basilica and are known as Lateran Councils, it met in the Vatican Basilica, hence its name. Its best-known decision is its definition of papal infallibility, strongly promoted by the Archibishop Luigi Natoli.

and d teachg of trinity was FORMALLY defined in d 4th cent even though it had been taught long before. Wat is ur point?

Ubenedictus:

Three sub-points:
1. When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew
16:15-19).

What Peter said agreed with Paul and Barnabas' testimony and also agreed with the earlier prophecies! No sweeping fiat from any man was final!

Besides, James reference to Peter does not suggest a belittling of the testimony of others. If Peter had said something contrary to scripture, he would have been corrected like Paul had to do when Peter acted contrary to the truth! Whither your unique authority!

The tenor of your post suggests that Paul had no right rebuking Peter because the latter had a unique authority when even Paul said:

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7 but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

In vain do we find Paul alluding to ANY unique authority handed to ANY apostle over the others! In fact Peter was even the one who mentioned that Paul was given some revelations which were hard to be understood!!! Now if he was the 'head' (whatever you mean by that), we should shudder that he was bypassed at this point!

2. When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the
troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is
depicted in a collegial manner

Rather I will say it was because they were with one accord under the Spirit's headship and they could therefore say:
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, Acts 15;28a

And that they were in one accord see:
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 and they wrote letters by them after this manner;

[b]The apostles and elders and brethren [/b]send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Acts 15:22,23
Again, NOBODY was singled out like you are doing!

. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18.
Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled
churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given
the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council

Shed more light on this piece stating clearly:
Where Peter acted alone and the others recognising that authority respected sans questioning.


P.S. The scenario below does not agree with Peter having a 'unique authority'

Now the apostles (special messengers) and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard [with astonishment] that the Gentiles (heathen) also had received and accepted and welcomed the Word of God [the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God].
2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party [certain Jewish Christians] found fault with him [separating themselves from him in a hostile spirit, opposing and disputing and contending with him],
3 Saying, Why did you go to uncircumcised men and [even] eat with them?
4 But Peter began [at the beginning] and narrated and explained to them step by step [the whole list of events]. He said:
5 I was in the town of Joppa praying, and [falling] in a trance I saw a vision of something coming down from heaven, like a huge sheet lowered by the four corners; and it descended until it came to me.
Acts 11:1-5

He had to explain himself and thankfully he was led by the Spirit - the One that truly represents and reveals Christ to, in and through the believers

The Only One that was sent In Christ's Name, Who bears and reveals His Name is He that was mentioned in Revelation 22:17a
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. (Bride = Church)

accountable:


U r derailing, the doctrine of papal infallibility was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870. The writing of Ignatius do not qualify as scripture do they?

and ignatuis show that the doctine has been taught in d early church, it was define late becos d protestant heresy came late.

Ubenedictus:
infallibity is abt teaching, not whether someone sinned or was a hypocrite. Now my question, where did Peter TEACH error?

Teaching can be oral, in writing or in actions. Peter acted in error and Paul called him out. Cheers

Ubenedictus:
the truth of God are not issues for pick and chose. You either believe or u don't. Wen u reject that which is true and teach sumtin diffeqent then u are a heretic.
And that didnt start in d 18th century
What started in 1870 is :
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

It became a dogma in 1870, meaning that since that time u lost the freedom to accept the bible alone.
so all the early christians wrote wrote after d apostles wer liars?

Yes, if they wrote contrary to scripture. Period.

Ubenedictus:
it is interesting dat u note this point. D apostles nd elders had a council were there was heated argument, and at the end they wrotd 'it seem gud to d holyspirit and to us...' they belive their heated council was led by d spirit and thus had d power to make laws for d church. Pretty interesting

The dissenters were mentioned:
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:5
Not the apostles but some pharisees! They had believed but like Simon the sorcerer still had issues!

Besides, you may make fun but thank God they sans your bias knew where the Inspiration for their decision came from- not ANY man but the Spirit!

lol, cant u see that d passage that was quoted has nothing to do wit d eating of unclean animals and circumcision, d passage has no link to d laws dat were made. The bible shows us where those laws come from.

The passage James referred to was to buttress the fact that the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles too:
Acts 15:14,15a
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Act 15:8-11 it was based on peter teaching not to lay any burder on them based on his xperience dat they had been saved and have d spirit. Both peter and paul in acts 15 related personal experiences not scripture.

Yes and none of those experiences were relayed in the letter!

The laws made in Jerusalem certainly had the traditions (teaching) of some apostle even witout outright scriptural backing.

The bone of contention was - NO CIRCUMCISION AS A CONDITION FOR SALVATION and Paul already knew this (also by Inspiration Galatians 2:4-6) hence the contention with those who said so (Acts 15:2)

Ubenedictus:
the truth of God are not issues for pick and chose. You either believe or u don't. Wen u reject that which is true and teach sumtin diffeqent then u are a heretic.
And that didnt start in d 18th century

No, what started in 1870 is
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

The last line places a curse. That is dogmatic definition. U r not longer free to disbelieve the pope.... Even when it is contrary to scripture. Before then a catholic could choose not to believe in papal infallibility. That is when u were no longer free to question papal teachings. But The apostles were willing to have their teachings scrutinised:
*[[1Co 14:37]]f any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Ubenedictus:
and d teachg of trinity was FORMALLY defined in d 4th cent even though it had been taught long before. Wat is ur point?

"The 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales attributed to Protestants the idea that Catholics were obliged to believe in papal infallibility:

(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church."
Source wikipedia.

The point is that before 1870 catholics were not obliged to believe in papal infallibity..... 'To say so was a protestant invention'

But after that it became a dogma.

accountable:


"The 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales attributed to Protestants the idea that Catholics were obliged to believe in papal infallibility:

(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church."
Source wikipedia.

The point is that before 1870 catholics were not obliged to believe in papal infallibity..... 'To say so was a protestant invention'

But after that it became a dogma.

The citation you give us is another indication of how much of
what passes for Irish Catholicism was actuated by political
circumstances. The Peelite Government lately passed was
acutely suspicious of the loyalty of the Catholic hierarchy,
hated the papacy, and were just waiting to pounce. The
immediate preceedings had been rather inciteful and left a
precariously delicate air. Bishops throughout the country
had been condemning the National Schools established in
1932 and the 'Godless' Queen's Colleges in 1945. The Synod
of Thurles took place that year, attracting the acrimony of
HMG. The re-establishment of the English hierarchy too,
prompting a disgusted Russell to pass the Ecclesiastical Titles
Act. Mass Catholic immigration into England from the
Famine roused alarm, and 'no popery' processions were
everywhere. Hatred of the papacy, already ubiquitous, was
augmented by an obsession with the Risorgimento. The
Oxford Movement, the Irish Church Act 1833, and the
Maynooth Grant led to the burning of the Pope in effigy in
'Papal Aggression' rallies throughout several towns in
England and southern Scotland. The Ultra-Tories and some
Whigs were even agitating for a repeal of the Emancipation
Act. Many more were calling for greater civil restrictions.
Historians are wont to keep in mind the peculiar
contemporary Irish circumstances when studying statements
on the papacy in that era. Papal infallibility had been the
greatest impediment to Catholic Emancipation, provided a
looming incentive for re-proscription and declarations on
the nature of the papacy were thus extremely sensitive to
Protestant controversy. Maynooth was an unrepresentative
bastion of Gallicianism at that time, most of its faculty had
been emigres from the French Revolution and tended to
adore the established authorities, a favour duly returned in
a 30,000l grant. Even Dr Troy the lord Archbishop of Dublin
and Propaganda in Rome expressed alarm at its tendencies.
That their lordships would approbate such an disputatious
formulation is by no means worthy of surprise. Had they
asserted the veracity of papal infallibility, it would have
resulted in certain proscription (read 'liberal and
enlightened' Gladstone's reaction, and proposals to
circumvent, the First Vatican Council). The bishops already
had an established tradition of countenancing formulations
they knew to be dubious as matters of prudence,
particularly evinced in the Catholic parliamentary and
military oath and abjuration. Dr Troy, an adherant to papal
infallibility, urged Catholics to accept the prescribed oath in
the Catholic Relief Act 1793 forswearing papal infallibility as
a lie even though his Grace was an unshakeable adherant to
it, later defending the 'prudence' of doing so in a letter to
Propaganda. Many of the bishops who approved that
catechism also professed papal infallibility but followed
Troy's set tradition, undoubtedly more focused on the
millions who were starving and emigrating. Then lord
Archbishop of Dublin, Daniel Murray who did so, is one
example, defending the doctrine powerfully in his "De
Gratia" (10 years before Vatican 1) which was even intended
as a text-book for students.

Read the Catechism from start to finish. It is fully CATHOLIC.
Try research the political structure of England at that time.