Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
From RCC web site:
Ex Cathedra
Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “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.” (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)
It is well further to explain:
* that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
* that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God’s agents in defining infallibly;
* and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.
in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.
————— end of extract -————
gag
Let's do everyone a favor. Why don't you show us all your proof.....from scripture?
But see the problem with this argument is that John 1:42 makes is infallibly clear that Peter is a translation of the original Cephas.
He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas " (which is translated Peter).This isn't some nice theory. Scripture says flat out that Cephas was the original and that is was *translated* from Aramaic into Greek. And the reason is was translated Petros and not Petra is simply because Peter is male. If Jesus would have named him "Petra" it would been the functional equivalent of naming him Caroline or Antoinette.
Also the fact that throughout Paul's writings, he ALWAYS refers to "Peter" as Cephas. I wonder why that might be??
Peter, called Cephas, is - by the very Scripture you cited - identified as “a stone”, not “the Rock”. The Rock is Christ, all men are as sand.
John 1:40-42:
“40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”
See post #58. The Israelites were world wide (sifted through the Nations) [Amos 9:9] by this time and that is where He sent the Twelve! If he meant they were to evangelize the Gentiles....why was Paul, twenty years later, still saying his (Peter's) mission was to the circumcised [Galatians 2:7-8]?
I also refer you to Acts 10 and 11:1-18. Peter is convinced through the vision given him and the subsequent events concerning Cornelius, that God had commanded that the Gentiles be evangelized.
Peter was not sent to evangelize Cornelius [Acts 10:1-3] as Cornelius was already a God fearing man. Peter was sent by the Holy Spirit to show a way for the Gentiles because God's chosen Apostle Paul was yet in Arabia sorting things out [Galatians 1:17].
Peter was never in Rome! I realize this statement destroys much of Catholicism's tradition.....but "C'est la vie"!
Excellent point.
That was a decision made by the translator of whatever version you are consulting--who decided to de-emphasize the fact that it was a proper name and make it into a common noun. Here is the passage in the original Greek:
Simwn o uios Iwannou, su klhqhsh Khfas, o ermhneuetai Petros
Simon son of John, you will be called Khfas (= Kephas), which is interpreted, Petros (= Petros).
The capital letters are not part of the original of course, so it's not 100% clear which meaning is meant here, but there is certainly no sound basis for insisting that this *has* to mean "small stone", when it could just as easily be the proper name Peter.
In any case, John is saying that Petros is a translation of the original Cephas, so if you want to make hay out of what Peter's name means, you have to do it in the Aramaic.
LOL. Yes, all the Christian writers of the 1st-4th centuries who all asserted that Peter was in Rome really botched that one, didn't they? They should've consulted Diego1618 2000 years later, who is mystically endowed with infallible knowledge of the fact.
What skin off your nose is Peter in Rome, anyway? You can admit he was in Rome without believing in the Papacy you know....just ask the Orthodox.
I mean really...let's not go burning down all of history to make a theological point.
Your post with the extract from Acts 1 (which you failed to identify) is not propaganda and it’s not the normal posting by an RCC guard dog. How Scripture is used identifies that use as propaganda or as right teaching.
Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is not the same thing as Peter being declared the Top Dog Apostle nor is it the same thing as any Apostle “passing on the Holy Spirit” to his successor. Christ confers the Holy Spirit into every Christians at the moment of conversion.
sorry, mixed you up with the other argument saying that Peter never went to Rome
C'mon...Claud. You and I both know there was a "Simon" in Rome. The question is.....which Simon?
What skin off your nose is Peter in Rome, anyway?
You know....it really isn't that big of a deal....except you folks must prove he was there.....or your Papacy come tumblin' down.
It's really kind of comical because scripture really does tell us where he was.....and it "wasn't" Rome! It is a fairly easy task to discredit this tradition of yours. In all actuality....it's a fairly easy task to discredit your entire theology....come to think of it!
Yes, so the point is that infallibility is totally seperate from inerrant. The infallible are protected from heresy; the inerrant are protected from sin. The two concepts have little in common, except that Protestants (and poorly educated Catholics living in Protestant-dominated cultures) confuse them.
True Christians want others to know the real truth and not just doctrine or false teachings.
And again I say...all the Christian writers of the 1st through 4th centuries were very clear about the fact which Simon it was. Everyone just took it for granted back then that Peter was in Rome: Clement, Tertullian, Papias, Eusebius. Peter’s epistle was written “from Babylon” which was a common early Christian cipher for pagan Rome (as in Revelations 17). Mark’s Gospel—history tells us he was Peter’s interpreter and wrote down Peter’s teaching—is full of Italianizations in the Greek (e.g., kenturion instead of hekatontarch), indicating that it was written in Italy. When archaeologists unearthed the 1st century cemetery under the Vatican they found early inscriptions dedicated to Peter.
I wouldn’t get too comfortable with your powers of “discrediting” if I were you..I’ve been in this apologetics business long enough to see that pride goeth before the fall.
By golly....Claud! If anyone is to put me in my place I would hope it be you. I know you to be a fine example of virtue and my respect for you overflows all boundaries. But....alas, other priorities have risen and need my attention. Hopefully we can continue later as you are one of my favorite adversaries. Till then..........
Please explain [Galatians 2:7-8].
There was a considerable population of Jews in Rome as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.