OFFICE OF POPE IN THE BIBLE

[epostle1]

Where did I say I was speaking TO YOU?

This is called a discussion forum. What you post is open to the whole world to comment on. You can also use the private message feature.

No I didn not solicite the pseudo Catholic "pope" Peter or the any other man made appointed "pope" to teach me Gods Word.

St. Peter was appointed by God. Do you need proof texts?

Thank you for proving my point. Disagreeing is of no issue. You using false accusations and calling others anti-Catholic, is by your own standard, you being anti-Protestant....
OWN IT!

I've said this before and I will say it again. I am not anti-Protestant, I am anti-ignorant Catholic bashers who pretend to be experts and are too proud to be corrected..

I have NO INTEREST in an indepth study of Catholic teaching. I have already heard and seen enough to know, it has too many conflicts with the Word of God.

I don't expect any Protestant to do an in depth study of Catholic teaching, what I expect is an effort to understand. What I get is a refusal to understand even after an error has been corrected 20 times. For example, "Catholicism teaches works righteousness". That LIE pops up every day. After it has been explained that it is a false statement, the same lie pops up, often by the same person.

And? Since you have decided to address me, then expose my supposed LIE with my words and Scripture that shows it to be a LIE.

I said I am anti-lies. It's a generalization. You don't want me to discuss any particular lie, you are just looking for a fight. "it has too many conflicts with the Word of God."
are fighting words and a generalization. It's been 500 years and you guys still haven't proven it. "word of God" does not mean "the written word alone". It's nowhere to be found in the Bible. It's not a lie, just a man made tradition.

I could care less how many churches you have been in. I am not responsible for what OTHER MEN SAY AND DO. I am an individual and am responsible for me.

You miss the point. I have met good, holy Protestants and none of them were radical bigots.

You are simply offended that people do not agree with your understanding.....

That is not what offends me. Stupid Catholic bashing with lies and falsehoods offends me. You say "it has too many conflicts with the Word of God" but give no example to discuss. Your self claimed expertise is a sham. Name one "conflict" and I would be happy to discuss it calmly and rationally. That is NOT what you are willing to do.

What you seem to not consider or ignore IS, until people agree in the UNDERSTANDING of the Word of God, there will always be umpteen "INDIVIDUAL" interpretations out of the MINDS of men, of WHAT the Word of God means.

Yes, it's called Protestantism.

Some Catholics (can say this applies to you, as you have not said), have declared "THEIR POPE" has the final say on what the Word of God MEANS. (Ie the UNDERSTANDING of Gods Word).

It doesn't work that way. Everybody has certain parameters. If a Calvinist professor started teaching Arminian theology, he would soon be out of a job. If a priest interpreted the Bible to justify same sex unions, he would be defrocked and thrown out. We have guidelines for interpretation just like everybody else. The Church does not officially interpret every single verse, that would stifle the living Word. The Pope is not an all powerful dominating dictator that he is often made out to be.

I say, that the Lord God Himself has His own Understanding OF His OWN Word, and provides His Understanding to "INDIVIDUALS" who seek HIM, "FOR" His Understanding.

That's like going to a hockey game with no referees. Worse, its like going to a hockey game and all the players are referees.

No need to be hostile, because all do not agree with you.

Ignorant Catholic bashers are more hostile than I am. That has nothing to do with disagreement. It's persecution. Like some stupid thread titles.

 

[Taken]

St. Peter was appointed by God.

To do what? Something DIFFERENT, than be a fellow elder, fellow citizen, fellow laborer, fellow worker, according to the Word of God?

I've said this before and I will say it again. I am not anti-Protestant

So? I have never said I WAS anti-Catholic, but I sure have heard several Catholics MAKE THAT CLAIM for numerous people WHO ALSO have NEVER CLAIMED they were anti-Catholic.

See how that WORKS? See how it is BEST, to LET OTHER PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN CLAIMS "FOR" themselves?

I am anti-ignorant Catholic

Your problem is YOU SOMEHOW presume ALL Catholics BELIEVE the EXACT SAME THINGS, when THEY Don't. When A man MAKES A CLAIM that he IS CATHOLIC, And believes such and such....AND says what he believes to a Protestant, AND a protestant repeats what he has heard TO ANOTHER CATHOLIC....

The OTHER CATHOLIC, "BLAMES" the Protestant, calls him a liar, and anti-Catholic.

Y'all may have a specific protocal on what you are SUPPOSED to believe.....but the fact is, y'all DON'T believe the same things.

It doesn't make a Protestant a liar, it simply makes SOME who claims to be Catholic, not sure of what THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BELIEVE. That is NOT MY PROBLEM.

bashers who pretend to be experts and are too proud to be corrected..

Again, You can "correct" anyone on your OWN beliefs, but you do not speak for ALL Catholics.....just yourself.

Again, When you can not delineate between a disagreement and snarky accusations, it's a quick turn off to consider anything another has to say.

I expect is an effort to understand.

Why are you so convinced Protestants DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT? We DO...and We DO NOT AGREE WITH "YOUR" Understanding.

What I get is a refusal to understand even after an error has been corrected 20 times.

Corrected? Why do you not get, inasmuch as YOU think "you are correct" so also does a Protestant, a Muslim, A Hindu, etc.

For example, "Catholicism teaches works righteousness". That LIE pops up every day. After it has been explained that it is a false statement, the same lie pops up, often by the same person.

It is a problem discussing a particular point, when ONE can not STAY on point, and instead deflects to other words.

I said I am anti-lies.

That is not unique nor specific to only you.

You don't want me to discuss any particular lie, you are just looking for a fight.

Well here we go....HOW PSYCHIC of YOU.
I don't even know you, and YOU ARE SPEAKING "FOR ME", NOTHING WHATSOEVER I have said!

And yet YOU are preaching to me, "you are anti-lies".....TRY practicing that, if you should ever desire a meaningful conversation!

It's been 500 years and you guys still haven't proven it. "word of God" does not mean "the written word alone".

WHY does "IT" (now that you've jumped to this point)..... require someone to PROVE that TO YOU....WHO CLAIMED THAT? That you have brought "IT" UP?

You miss the point. I have met good, holy Protestants and none of them were radical bigots.

No, I have not missed the point. I simply do not defend my position of disagreement.

That is not what offends me. Stupid Catholic bashing with lies and falsehoods offends me.

Gee, you think Protestants enjoy Protestants bashing by Catholics?

You say "it has too many conflicts with the Word of God" but give no example to discuss.

I gave my view. It wasn't the topic of discussion. It was a simply comment.

You could express interest if you want to further discuss.

And here is a fine example of HOW A Catholics notifies another they would like to further discuss something someone mentioned.........----->

Your self claimed expertise is a sham.

First of all.....I DID NOT CLAIM ANY EXPERTISE....so once again, your claims of being anti-lies.....seems to exclude yourself!

Name one "conflict" and I would be happy to discuss it calmly and rationally.

There is NO NEED, after your snarky remarks to engage with you. And besides, there appears NO NEED, for me to give you any of my thoughts, SINCE YOU ARE PSYCHIC, and already know WHAT I think BEFORE I SAY What I really THINK!

That is NOT what you are willing to do.

LOL, yet again, your Psychic works.

Yes, it's called Protestantism.
It doesn't work that way. Everybody has certain parameters. If a Calvinist professor started teaching Arminian theology, he would soon be out of a job. If a priest interpreted the Bible to justify same sex unions, he would be defrocked and thrown out. We have guidelines for interpretation just like everybody else. The Church does not officially interpret every single verse, that would stifle the living Word. The Pope is not an all powerful dominating dictator that he is often made out to be.
That's like going to a hockey game with no referees. Worse, its like going to a hockey game and all the players are referees.
Ignorant Catholic bashers are more hostile than I am. That has nothing to do with disagreement. It's persecution. Like some of the thread titles.

Blah, blah, blah.

I have no interest in you telling me what I think or believe. Your vendetta is typical of other Catholics I have talked to, speaking for yourself and the other, then bashing what you have SAID FOR THE other.

What a bizarre method of attempting to converse with another, when you are so psychic and have no need for another to participate in the conversation.

Weird!

 

[ScottA]

@epostle1 @kepha31 ... You are one and the same I take it?

Look, most of us have Catholic friends and family whom we love and get along with without all this fighting. But you have made this thread about an office that, if it were ever true, was disband before it ever started:

Matthew 16:13-23
"13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is?

14 And they said, Some [say] John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.

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

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

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

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

19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

20 Then charged he the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.

21 From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.

22 And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men."

...So which office are you referring to, "rock" or "Satan?"

For if you insist upon the one...then we simply must insist upon the other.

 

[epostle1]

To do what? Something DIFFERENT, than be a fellow elder, fellow citizen, fellow laborer, fellow worker, according to the Word of God?

Peter was leader of the whole Church and spokesman for all the apostles. I have 70+ verses to prove it if you want them.[/quote]

So? I have never said I WAS anti-Catholic, but I sure have heard several Catholics MAKE THAT CLAIM for numerous people WHO ALSO have NEVER CLAIMED they were anti-Catholic.

If you bash Catholicism with the standard lies and falsehoods, and REFUSE to be corrected, you are anti-Catholic. Period. It's an epidemic on this board.

See how that WORKS? See how it is BEST, to LET OTHER PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN CLAIMS "FOR" themselves?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Your problem is YOU SOMEHOW presume ALL Catholics BELIEVE the EXACT SAME THINGS, when THEY Don't. When A man MAKES A CLAIM that he IS CATHOLIC, And believes such and such....AND says what he believes to a Protestant, AND a protestant repeats what he has heard TO ANOTHER CATHOLIC....
The OTHER CATHOLIC, "BLAMES" the Protestant, calls him a liar, and anti-Catholic.

That's not how it works. There are stupid ignorant Catholics and their are stupid ignorant Protestants. Find a Catholic web page that misrepresents Protestants the way Catholicism gets misrepresented. I wait with baited breath.

Y'all may have a specific protocal on what you are SUPPOSED to believe.....but the fact is, y'all DON'T believe the same things.

Protestants believe in 10's of thousands different things, so who are you to lecture me? If a Catholic chooses to deviate from Catholic teaching, how is that the Church's fault?

It doesn't make a Protestant a liar, it simply makes SOME who claims to be Catholic, not sure of what THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BELIEVE. That is NOT MY PROBLEM.

Is there a question in there somewhere?

Again, You can "correct" anyone on your OWN beliefs, but you do not speak for ALL Catholics.....just yourself.

I claim the Protestant principle of Private Judgement.

Again, When you can not delineate between a disagreement and snarky accusations, it's a quick turn off to consider anything another has to say.

Good advice. Getting truckloads of lies and insults is ok, but giving back a teaspoon of the same medicine and suddenly I am a bad Catholic. I can handle disagreement, but flaming zingers are really annoying.

Why are you so convinced Protestants DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT? We DO...and We DO NOT AGREE WITH "YOUR" Understanding.

That's fine. I know most Protestants don't understand, but refusing to be corrected on a lie or misrepresentation over and over again is not disagreement. It's bigotry.

Corrected? Why do you not get, inasmuch as YOU think "you are correct" so also does a Protestant, a Muslim, A Hindu, etc.

Truth is not relative.

It is a problem discussing a particular point, when ONE can not STAY on point, and instead deflects to other words.

That is not unique nor specific to only you.

Well here we go....HOW PSYCHIC of YOU.
I don't even know you, and YOU ARE SPEAKING "FOR ME", NOTHING WHATSOEVER I have said!

And yet YOU are preaching to me, "you are anti-lies".....TRY practicing that, if you should ever desire a meaningful conversation!

WHY does "IT" (now that you've jumped to this point)..... require someone to PROVE that TO YOU....WHO CLAIMED THAT? That you have brought "IT" UP?

No, I have not missed the point. I simply do not defend my position of disagreement.
Gee, you think Protestants enjoy Protestants bashing by Catholics?

Gee, I can't imagine what that would be like.

gave my view. It wasn't the topic of discussion. It was a simply comment.

You could express interest if you want to further discuss.

What would you like to discuss?

And here is a fine example of HOW A Catholics notifies another they would like to further discuss something someone mentioned.........----->

First of all.....I DID NOT CLAIM ANY EXPERTISE....so once again, your claims of being anti-lies.....seems to exclude yourself!

Having trouble finding a Catholic bashing thread?

There is NO NEED, after your snarky remarks to engage with you. And besides, there appears NO NEED, for me to give you any of my thoughts, SINCE YOU ARE PSYCHIC, and already know WHAT I think BEFORE I SAY What I really THINK!

I am psychic. You are looking at a monitor.

LOL, yet again, your Psychic works.

Blah, blah, blah.

I have no interest in you telling me what I think or believe. Your vendetta is typical of other Catholics I have talked to, speaking for yourself and the other, then bashing what you have SAID FOR THE other.

What a bizarre method of attempting to converse with another, when you are so psychic and have no need for another to participate in the conversation.

Weird!

Do you have a polite way of asking questions? I have polite answers. Just spare me the flaming zingers and 20 accusatory topics in one paragraph.

 

[Taken]

Peter was leader of the whole Church and spokesman for all the apostles. I have 70+ verses to prove it if you want them.

It is not a matter "IF" Peter was given "authority" over the "other" apostles.

It is a matter of "TITLES", that Catholics "Posthumously" "ASSIGN" "TO" men, AND
"TITLES", that Catholics "ASSIGN" "TO" Living men.

If you bash Catholicism with the standard lies and falsehoods.

"IF" your own Catholics BELIEVE and PRACTICE and PREACH what some Catholics believe IS CONTRARY to Catholicism...
I am not responsible FOR their claims.

and REFUSE to be corrected, you are anti-Catholic. Period. It's an epidemic on this board.

it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Be a big boy, and notice the door swings both ways.
While you are hammering people are anti-Catholic, the same applies to you (ducky) being anti-Protestant.

Find a Catholic web page that misrepresents Protestants the way Catholicism gets misrepresented. I wait with baited breath.

No thanks. I do not care to waste my time on what I do not believe. NOT Scriptural to be focused on what ISN'T, rather than being focused on WHAT IS.

Protestants believe in 10's of thousands different things,

Already established that; It's an INDIVIDUALS prerogative to Believe what he individually chooses.

so who are you to lecture me?

I am the one you decided to address, and tell me all about your complaints toward Protestants....that's who.

Getting truckloads of lies and insults is ok, but giving back a teaspoon of the same medicine and suddenly I am a bad Catholic. I can handle disagreement, but flaming zingers are really annoying.

Well if you think you are a "bad Catholic", that would be your own prerogative. I havn't seen anyone else make that claim FOR YOU.

I know most Protestants don't understand, but refusing to be corrected on a lie or misrepresentation over and over again is not disagreement. It's bigotry.

LOL...funny. Again you are a mind reader on what MOST Protestants know and understand.....and your little disparaging comment about them .... to verify your anti-Protestant perspective.

Truth is not relative.

Your words....and something else, I disagree with.

Having trouble finding a Catholic bashing thread?

WOW...

I am not a Catholic, so you think that means....anti-Catholic?

You are not a Pope, does that make you...
Anti-Pope?

I am psychic.

Good for you, however mystics don't interest me.

Do you have a polite way of asking questions?

YOU mean LIKE YOU? Is the following YOUR IDEA of being POLITE?

Having trouble finding a Catholic bashing thread?

I have polite answers.

Now if you can just learn to ask polite questions, and ACTUALLY allow others to answer without you answering FOR THEM, and then adding your snarking comments, YOU MIGHT be able to have a worthy conversation.

 

[ScottA]

Someone must be ignoring me. Go figure.

 

[Taken]

Someone must be ignoring me. Go figure.

Eh, I give people the benefit they may be busy. However I am in no hurry to engage with someone who has a chip on their shoulder, painfully worried about what other people think and believe.

God Bless you brother,
Taken

Main thing....Christ Jesus our Lord is
AWESOME!!

 

[epostle1]

Someone must be ignoring me. Go figure.

Yea, I am ignoring you. Somehow you escaped from my ignorasium.

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

I have you on ignore because of your constant denials. In a week from now, you will use the same stupid argument in a vain attempt to denigrate Peter's role as spokesman for all the Apostles and leader of the Church. You can only see Peter's few mistakes and blind to everything else.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-primacy-of-peter/

 

[ScottA]

Yea, I am ignoring you. Somehow you escaped from my ignorasium.

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

I have you on ignore because of your constant denials. In a week from now, you will use the same stupid argument in a vain attempt to denigrate Peter's role as spokesman for all the Apostles and leader of the Church. You can only see Peter's few mistakes and blind to everything else.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/the-primacy-of-peter/

Jesus saw it all clear, and by no coincidence the one passage leads right into the other. Peter saw it clear also. But men have seen it both ways, some following the Spirit, and some following the man. Some will never see it until that day when they too hear it from Jesus.

Meanwhile, those who have followed the Spirit continue to bring the good news. But "hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."

Ignore away.

 

[epostle1]

The next time you down play Peter’s authority with "get behind me satan", I will post Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding for the 50th time, and maybe it will sink in. I doubt it. You will use the same lame argument to down play Peter’s authority over and over again.

The "Paul Rebukes Peter" incident: Gal. 2:11-15

Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).

People try to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that.

 

[Taken]

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority.

A few issues.

1) Jesus chose disciple Jews, to continue Jesus' WORK of seeking LOST Jews.

Seems your understanding is Jesus' gave Peter AUTHORITY over the CHURCH, WHEN...

1) Christ Jesus is the Head of His Church.
2) The extent of Peter's AUTHORITY in Scripture appears some exhibited AUTHORITY "AMONGST" the Disciples.

2) How did Peter, BECOME the "HOLY FATHER", as Popes are ADDRESSED, when thee only Scriptural mention of thee "HOLY FATHER", is in regard specifically TO God?

3) WHY is a TEACHER ASSIGNED specifically TO THE JEWS, a Gentiles Posthumously, Holy Father?

4) WHY was he NOT during his lifetime THEE HOLY FATHER of the Gentiles? AND addressed as such?

If you want Peter to be the Authorative Figure OVER the other Apostles of his day....okay, maybe he was.

Nothing says Peter KNEW more, UNDERSTOOD more, than other Apostles venturing out to TEACH Jews, or that they required Peter's approval on HOW they would preach to Jews....

And WHY the Posthumous Titles and Acclamations for Peter?

It is those type of things, A Protestant has the disagreement with.

 

[Taken]

The next time you down play Peter’s authority with "get behind me satan", I will post Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding for the 50th time, and maybe it will sink in. I doubt it. You will use the same lame argument to down play Peter’s authority over and over again.

The "Paul Rebukes Peter" incident: Gal. 2:11-15

Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).

People try to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that.

Agree that men can be hypocrites, even when they are believers or Saved and born again Believers......

HOW does the infallibility of a man...then not apply TO a Catholic Pope.....when it appears Catholic Popes are declared INFALLIBLE....

How is that SO, and NOT SO, as you just mentioned.

Perhaps you could explain the Catholic take on how OPPOSITES can mean the same thing.

 

[Taken]

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

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

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

It is the LACK of understanding that confounds.

God IS the Rock.
That was established in the OT.

God IS Unchanging.
That was established in the OT.

Christ Jesus IS the Head of the Church.
God is the Rock.
Jesus the Chief corner stone OF the Church.

The Rock is the Foundation.
The Chief corner stone IS the FIRST stone "OF" the Foundation, to which all other stones, will be SET, in reference to THE CORNER STONE.

AND, WHAT IS THE REFERENCE, to which ALL other "stones" shall be added, IN BUILDING Christ's Church....?

Peter GAVE the Answer....

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

"THAT" IS THE FOUNDATION of Christ's Church. And every little stone, (ie men) who are ADDED upon THAT foundation, are partakers (participants) IN adding to Christ building HIS church, without mortar or mens hands.

And EVERY man "WHO" has heartfully come to that BELIEF....

1) DOES SO, "BY" and "THOUGH" the Power of God, as IT IS REVEALED to the Individual.
(V- 17)

2) also revealed in V-17, IS new names are prepared FOR Natural men, WHO are blessed with the understanding given them FROM God, that Jesus' Church is BUILT UPON...

The Corner stone....REFERENCE....THAT
"Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God"......IS "this rock" in V-17.

Jesus' Church is not "built" upon a human man, but rather human men BECOME the individual "parts" (the little stones) of Jesus' WHOLE Church.

And just as the Apostles were "Prepared" (aka being told by God in Heaven) and then SENT OUT TO TEACH.....

"Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God"

So also is every man, WHO receives the SAME Holy Spirit, also "prepared" to TESTIFY....of Jesus' Church, and the ROCK is God, and the Corner Stone OF the ROCK IS Christ Jesus, and EVERY man WHO trusts to believe...

"Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God".....SHALL BE a participant in BUILDING Christ's Spiritual Eternal Church.

God Bless,
Taken.

 

[Philip James]

The infallibility of the pope , refers to his official declarations on matters on faith and morals especially in unison with the other bishops of the Church
( the Councils)

The Holy Spirit will NOT allow Christ's church to teach error..

This 'infallabilty' does NOT mean that a pope or bishop will unfailingly follow the teaching of the Church.

Paul rebuking Peter is a fine example...
He was not chastising his teaching, but calling him out for NOT following it ...

Peace!

 

[Taken]

The infallibility of the pope , refers to his official declarations on matters on faith and morals especially in unison with the other bishops of the Church
( the Councils)

The Holy Spirit will NOT allow Christ's church to teach error..

This 'infallabilty' does NOT mean that a pope or bishop will unfailingly follow the teaching of the Church.

Paul rebuking Peter is a fine example...
He was not chastising his teaching, but calling him out for NOT following it ...

Peace!

My understanding is the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error....WHEN
Exercising his Authority as a Teacher to Christians....

BECAUSE of a 'promise' given BY Jesus TO Peter.

Where is this supposed PROMISE given TO Peter in Scripture?

Where is this supposed PROMISE given TO Peter, THEN handed down to FROM Peter to OTHER men?

And WHO did Peter supposedly hand down such supposed Promise TO?

Thanks,
God Bless,
Taken

 

[Philip James]

Just to clarify , here is the relevant section from the catechism:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

 

[ScottA]

The next time you down play Peter’s authority with "get behind me satan", I will post Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding for the 50th time, and maybe it will sink in. I doubt it. You will use the same lame argument to down play Peter’s authority over and over again.

The "Paul Rebukes Peter" incident: Gal. 2:11-15

Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).

People try to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that.

And for this very reason we also rebuke you.

Just as Peter did not understand that what seems good to men, is not necessarily good to God or His plan, you and many of your conviction have looked to what seems good to men and followed the object of what Jesus said, rather than the principle, which is God...rather than Peter. Peter was just the object, a vessel used to make the greater point that Jesus would build His church [just as He said] by the spirit of God rather than by flesh and blood. You advocate for building His church by flesh and blood against Jesus' clear word against it.

 

[epostle1]

And for this very reason we also rebuke you.

Just as Peter did not understand that what seems good to men, is not necessarily good to God or His plan, you and many of your conviction have looked to what seems good to men and followed the object of what Jesus said, rather than the principle, which is God...rather than Peter. Peter was just the object, a vessel used to make the greater point that Jesus would build His church [just as He said] by the spirit of God rather than by flesh and blood. You advocate for building His church by flesh and blood against Jesus' clear word against it.

Chapter and verse, please.

The 100% spiritual or invisible church cannot exist. It cannot bind and loose (a rabbinical term). Jesus builds His church on the person of Peter, but not without the spirit of God. You make a false dichotomy. To you, it cannot be both. The Holy books of the Bible was compiled by visible, flesh and blood human beings. The spirit of God superintended this very human process. God didn't do it without flesh and blood. The canon of Scripture is a big problem for Protestants. Some go so far as to invent Bible origin fantasies because they refuse to admit we have a Bible realized by the authority of the Catholic Church. Even Martin Luther didn't deny it.

di·chot·o·my (google)
[dīˈkädəmē]

NOUN

1. 
   a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.
   "a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism"
   synonyms: division · separation · divorce · split · gulf · chasm · difference · contrast · disjunction · polarity · lack of consistency · contradiction · antagonism

http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/vatican_says_protestants_not_churches.php

http://www.catholiclane.com/refuting-the-myth-of-the-invisible-church/

Please explain how the spirit of God refuted the Arian heresy, the Nestorian heresy, the Apollarian heresy, and every heresy in the patristic period, without the use of flesh and blood human beings.

 

[epostle1]

And for this very reason we also rebuke you.

Just as Peter did not understand that what seems good to men,

Wrong. Peter did not understand why Jesus would go to Jerusalem where is was dangerous for Jesus. Try reading the context. You are rebuking half the New Testament.

is not necessarily good to God or His plan,

Peter was not yet Pope, and Peter gave no teaching. I've already pointed this out but your prejudice prevents you from seeing the obvious.

you and many of your conviction have looked to what seems good to men and followed the object of what Jesus said, rather than the principle, which is God...rather than Peter.

This is sheer nonsense. Peter taught the "object of what Jesus said" and ultimately, lived it to his death.

Peter was just the object, a vessel used to make the greater point that Jesus would build His church [just as He said] by the spirit of God rather than by flesh and blood. You advocate for building His church by flesh and blood against Jesus' clear word against it.

Jesus said no such thing.

 

[epostle1]

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of "anti-Church" that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.