Did you see my earlier comments about Galatians 2, where Paul corrects Peter on his misguided doctrine?
And don’t lecture me about “infallibility.” I know very well what it is. Peter was NOT infallible, even after he supposedly became the first Pope. Indeed, he was neither recognized as the primarily leader in the early church, nor as infallible in the area of doctrine. Those ideas sprouted later, and are false.’
Yes, I am a Protestant. I protest against the false doctrines introduced by Rome, and promote the true doctrines of Scripture. May Christ alone be glorified and honored.
Yet in this post you continue to show your mistaken knowledge of it.
At the very least know what it is before you criticize it.
You wrote:
“Did you see my earlier comments about Galatians 2, where Paul corrects Peter on his misguided doctrine?”
It wasn’t doctrine. It was actions.
“And don’t lecture me about “infallibility.” I know very well what it is.”
Apparently you don’t. If you did you would know that Galatians 2 has nothing to do with infallibility.
“Peter was NOT infallible, even after he supposedly became the first Pope. Indeed, he was neither recognized as the primarily leader in the early church, nor as infallible in the area of doctrine. Those ideas sprouted later, and are false.”
No. He was recognized as the leader of the Church - that’s why the whole Church prayed for Peter was he was arrested. And that’s why everyone held their silence when he spoke in Acts 15.
“Yes, I am a Protestant.”
Noooooo! Reallllly? What a shock.
“I protest against the false doctrines introduced by Rome, and promote the true doctrines of Scripture. May Christ alone be glorified and honored.”
What you protest is truth and what you promote is simply Protestantism which has little to do with the truth.
Learn about infallibility before you attack it.
As written here:
The favorite argument of the non-Catholics is one which we will touch on briefly, and have in fact mentioned above. It concerns the first pope, Saint Peter, and his not eating with the gentile converts. This is mentioned in Galatians 2:11-14; Saint Paul says that he corrected and rebuked Peter. Surely, the argument goes, if Saint Peter were not infallible, then how could he be the first pope (if the pope is infallible) or, if Saint Peter were the first pope and was not infallible, how could all the other popes be infallible?
This argument is easy to refute by a close reading of the text. It is made very clear in the Scripture that Saint Peter did not in fact teach or solemnly define something which was wrong. In fact, quite the opposite – Saint Peter had argued that Jewish and Gentile Christians should eat together – but he just wasn’t living up to his own teaching! Saint Paul rebuked him not for an error in teaching, but rather for hypocrisy. This is a clear – and probably the first – example of infallibility versus impeccability.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4i.htm
Oh.
Can you talk about the difference between doctrine and deeds. May I assume you know very well that they are distinct?
Do you know very well that it appears that what you think we teach about papal infallibility and what we in fact teach are different?
I don't know much, very well or poorly. But I do know that when somebody says I think something I know I don't think, I find it hard to believe him. And when an argument is based on that shaky foundation, I know I find it hard to pay attention.
It sounds like you are right to reject what you think the Catholic Church teaches. But I'm hitting a wall on the "know very well," since what you know is so different from what I have learned in attending and giving classes and in studying the question. You are clearly rejecting something, but that something is not what I embrace.