Replies

I think you’re confusing “infallible” (able to teach without error) with “impeccable” (without sin).

No, although i had not thought of it in that way i was referring to being infallible in the sense of teaching.

Paul had a problem with Peter which you could say he told to the whole world of Christendom,

If Paul was right Peter was not impeccable.

If Paul was wrong Paul was not infallible.

Peter said he was chosen to give the word to the gentiles.

Paul said that he was.

Were both of them infallible?

I believe scripture is inspired by God but what was considered scripture in those days?

I doubt very much if Pauls letters were considered scripture at that time.

And i do believe that any thing any Church teaches that is not backed up in plain words by scripture has a good chance of being wrong.

Also of the many translations how many say exactly the same thing, they can not all be 100 percent infallible.

Infallibility is something i do not believe any one has except for God.

Real theologians—and Popes—do not rely on translations when doing serious work that involves Scripture. They go to the original Hebrew and Greek.

If you exclude all infallibility on the part of “men,” then you have to deny Jesus’ promise to remain with the Apostles and the Church (by sending the Holy Spirit) to maintain them in the truth.

No one claims that the Church is infallible about anything but the essentials of the Christian Faith. But to exclude ALL infallibility, you have to deny the promises of Jesus.