Can I just say, I have read a couple of books in my life, and one of them was the Bible?
YES, I know that there's a kind of a historical slide from presbyteros into heirous. I know it, and I'm okay with it. It has to do in our thought with the church being the body of which Christ is the head, abody all of whose members participate in Christ's Kingship, Prophetic Charism, and Priestly Office, AND with the separation of functions and gifts among the many members of the body.
Once again, we do not hold the Church of Acts to be a kind of standard from which everyone has declined.
Here is some info on the actual conciliar "definition" of Infallibility. I'm not sure your reasoning is in there.
Yes. I know and have on this thread said that Peter wussed out. You guys seem never to tire of adducing the funkiness of popes as an argument against the grace of God.
Look. WHile we regret all deviations from the path and so forth, there's a certain celebration for us in knowing that a scoundrel like Leo X can be pope and yet not promulgate some disastrous teaching. That Peter waffled neither shakes our confidence in his being Pope nor in the charisms given to the papacy. We don't trust the MAN Joseph Ratzinger (though I hear he's a very good teacher and a very good man. We trust God.
Extrapolating very slightly, if at all . . . from one of Mark’s recent long posts about my . . . pet issues . . .
and re:
We don’t trust the MAN Joseph Ratzinger (though I hear he’s a very good teacher and a very good man. We trust God.
#####
I’m more than a little skeptical about how far that
ROYAL ‘WE’
would apply, actually.