The Catholic Dogma of Infallibility

“The human authors of Scripture were absolutely infallible in writing the words of Holy Writ”

This comment needs a bit of correction, I think...The human ‘authors’ were never ‘infallible’...What they penned, though in ‘writing the words of the Holy Writ’ were ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit...God breathed’. Hence the infallibility.

In fact, time and time again throughout the New Testament, Peter is called “primus,” (first) when he was, in fact, *not* the first of the apostles. He *was* the first to witness the resurrected Christ, but only because John stopped and allowed him to enter first, a clear deference. And there are so many times when the other disciples ask Peter to ask Jesus something.

You might want to check your facts on Peter being the first to witness the resurrected Christ. Luke notes women were the first to enter the tomb.

Your assertion that John stopped to let Peter go in first is just that....an assertion with no proof. Recall, John outran Peter to the tomb. John got there first and saw the empty tomb but did not go into the tomb. Peter went on in to the tomb. One can understand why after his actions in denying Christ as he did.

Protestantism had its origin primarily in a political context. Luther had been declared a heretic at the Diet of Worms in 1521, but the Diet of Speyer of 1526 had issued what we might think of as a temporary injunction against strict enforcement of Worm's Reichstag (imperial ban) against evangelical Christianity. The injunction could only be lifted by a full council, and that wasn't going to happen for many years. The net effect was a temporary declaration of religious liberty for the princes of the free cities of Germany, which benefited the reformers.

However, at the Diet of Speyer in 1529, Ferdinand, regent of the Holy Roman Emperor (Charles V), removed the "injunction" of tolerance and insisted on compliance with the Edict of Worms to stamp out Protestantism as a duty of the princes. Obviously, this met with objection by those princes favorable to evangelical Christianity. They appealed the decision to resume hostilities. Hence their "protest" was against forcible political suppression, up to and including the execution of Anabaptists and others. It was here they were first derogated as "the protestants," for having the nerve to object to their own injury. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_at_Speyer

What I do find interesting is an apparent contradiction between Wikipedia articles. In the one linked above, Ferdinand's actions in the 1529 Diet are represented as expressive of Charles' will, but in the article below, it is said that Ferdinand was subversive to the will of Charles, who wanted reconciliation, which makes more sense politically, considering his troubles with the Turks in the east:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_of_Speyer_(1529)

At this point, I don't know which is true, but if in fact the so-called "birth of Protestantism" came from an act of rebellion by the Catholic regent subverting the will of the Holy Roman Emperor, the irony would be almost too rich to digest.

The upshot of all this is that these recurring claims that Protestantism is a rejection of historical Christianity, and that all of it burst suddenly on the scene through one wandering German monk, are almost too ridiculous to be given the time of day. There had been an evangelical theme among Christians from day one, whether inside or outside the Roman edifice. The reformers were following more or less in the footsteps of Augustine, contra Ambrose and others, a division of thought with long duration and tolerated reasonably well until the reformation brought a messy divorce between the two. Yes, this is an oversimplification, and it deserves the work of a full treatise, but this is intended only to show that disparagement of evangelical Christianity as a novelty would only satisfy an incurious mind too eager to lay blame. The truth lies deeper than clever FR quips.

What for example of the neo-prots? Right here on FR, we have people routinely "protesting" the current efforts to liberalize Roman teaching on the family, social justice, etc. If it is right for these to dissent, then dissent itself cannot be the issue, and mocking others who dissent for different reasons is hypocritical. But dissent is just loyal opposition, someone says. Well and good. So thought Luther and the other reformers. They did not ask to be declared heretics. They did not ask to have edicts written against their very lives. They objected to that, and if ever the current "loyal opposition" to the destructive machinations of Francis, Kaspar etc is labeled "heretic," they too will object ("protest") and will doubtless explain it is the other chap who has gone heretic, and they may well be right, but they will still be "protestants" by their own definition.

Which is why debating these matters in that framework is a losing battle, for everybody. It accepts the premise that the "Church" is primarily a human institution, and not an organic spiritual entity. Once within that "institutional" domain, the arguments are so easily derailed by subjective opinion that no consensus will ever be possible. But Christ pointed us toward the organic view:

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
(Matthew 13:31-32)

No matter how great the size of that mustard plant, nor however many branches it grows, the life of every branch goes back to the living root, which we know is Jesus Himself. Predatory birds may come and take shelter in those branches, just as predatory men and women might come among the faithful to meet their own carnal needs. But they are not participants in the true life of the tree. They are just temporary passengers. The Lord knows those who are His.

Peace,

SR

He was the first OF THE APOSTLES to witness the risen lord. In context that should have been obvious, had you any goal of coming to mutual understanding, instead of finding a nit to pick to discredit the rest of the argument. Find a real nit, next time.

Unfortunately that's not what you posted. Your assertion was that he was the first to witness the resurrected Christ is false.

Your post #82 He *was* the first to witness the resurrected Christ, but only because John stopped and allowed him to enter first, a clear deference. And there are so many times when the other disciples ask Peter to ask Jesus something.

Which again is not true. The women were the first to the tomb on Sunday and the first to enter (Mark 16:5).

There is also no indication, other than in the catholic mind, that John "deferred" to Peter.

From John we have the following account:

The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed (John 20:3-8 NASB).

Of Peter and John, John was first to the tomb. Does this establish the primacy of John over the other apostles?

Does Christ picking John to take care of Mary establish his primacy over the others?

The lengths the catholic will go to read into Scripture things that are not there and then to mis-read what is there to advance the false teachings of Rome never ceases to amaze me.