What a lousy excuse for scholarship.
Papal infallibility wasn’t invented at Vatican I; it was delineated in a most highly restrictive way. As defined by Vatican I, the Pope is only infallible when he speaks from the throne of St. Peter, on behalf of the Church, for the establishment of doctrine. While Vatican I insisted the Pope does this on his own authority, in every instance when he has done this, the Pope has either confirmed the findings of an ecumenical council of bishops, or stated the presence of a consensus throughout the Church and throughout history of those who represent the Church.
It breaks me up that the author paints Vatican II as backpedalling, then cites Vatican II as its source for just how authoritative papal infallibility is.
But I mean, come on... some of the errors are just plain silly. Every time the New Testament lists all of the disciples, it not only lists Peter first, it also titles him “first,” even though he was not the first disciple called or the first to arrive at the resurrection. (The only reason he was first of the 12 to witness the resurrection was because John halted.) But for crying out loud, Matthew 4:18 DOES list Peter first, even though it’d make sense to list Andrew first. The closest you can get to the gospels or Acts listing any other order or the disciples is John 1:44? (”Phillip, like Andrew and Peter,...”)
This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, but had been defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
One was not bound to accept a Romanist prophet until Vatican I ...it then became an article of faith ..a doctrine that Catholics must accept the foolishness that has flows from that "chair"
Every time the New Testament lists all of the disciples, it not only lists Peter first, it also titles him “first,” even though he was not the first disciple called or the first to arrive at the resurrection
So?? He was 1st among the apostles.. but how did he understand that ?
Acts 10:25When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. 26But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am just a man."
1 Peter 5: 1So I exhort the elders among you, mas a fellow elder and na witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:
After Pentecost Peter no longer listed first, before that there was no system of church government ..
“Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.” (1 Corinthians 3:21-23)
James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. (gal2:9)
And do remember the seat of the new church was not Rome..it was Jerusalem where the 1st church council was held.. that was James church .. and as the head of the church in Jerusalem he was in charge of that council not Peter