Problems with papal infallibility

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive	Archive [500 char limit]
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Flag	open flag menu
Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder	Show voice recorder (the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

Problems with papal infallibility † 08/27/20 (Thu) 01:29:46 c68b1c No.844214

Debunking Catholic Truth Claims - Why Papal Authority Is Unsupportable

One of the central truth claims of the Catholic Church (perhaps even the most distinctly Catholic truth claim), is that Jesus entrusted the apostle Peter with a unique authority in the Church, an authority that through the practice of Apostolic Succession has been borne throughout history by his successors, the Bishops of Rome or the Popes. The Biblical source for this truth claim is found in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically in chapter 16, verses 13-20.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Now there are a number of problems with the Catholic Church’s reliance on this passage to support the truth claim of Papal authority, and the best place to begin is by seeing how this passage holds up under the three primary tools of Biblical Academia; independent attestation, dissimilarity, and contextual credibility.

Independent Attestation

The principle of Independent Attestation holds that a saying attributed to Jesus is more likely to be historical if it is attested in multiple independent sources; in the same way, the account of a crime is more likely to hold up in court if it is affirmed by several unrelated witnesses, rather than if it is attested to by only one person.

So with this criteria in mind, is the passage above found in multiple gospels in the New Testament? Well, Luke does not contain it, and neither does John. The only gospel that contains something similar is Mark chapter 8, verses 27-30, which has this version of the story.

And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

Rather than support the text in Matthew, this similar passage in Mark actually undermines its credibility. Note that in this version Peter merely declares that Jesus is the Christ, not “the Son of the Living God,” and Jesus’ only response is not to tell anyone about this; he makes no mention of the Church, Peter, or the rock on which the Church will be built. Now, it is nearly universally agreed upon by New Testament scholars that the Gospel of Mark predates Matthew, the author of which relied on Mark as a source for his own gospel. So what is more likely; that Mark deliberately left out this critically important saying of Jesus delegating authority to Peter, or that the author of Matthew embellished Mark’s story by adding it in? This indeed is the explanation supported by biblical scholars. If this saying of Jesus is as important as Catholic apologists and theologians make it out to be, it is inconceivable that none of the other gospel writers found it worth mentioning in their own accounts.

____________________________

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 01:31:00 c68b1c No.844215

File: db8fbb65ec761fe⋯.jpg (37.16 KB, 493x596, 493:596, 438681dfb2c68b7e1c5e851f10….jpg)

>>844214

Dissimilarity and Contextual Credibility

While these are two separate criteria, in the case of this passage they are best used in tandem, as I will soon demonstrate.

The second criterion, dissimilarity, can be understood like this; would it be in the interest of the author to make up or invent the saying in question? Does the saying serve to support their theology? If so, then the passage is more likely to be non-historical. If however the passage is not the sort of thing that a later author would invent, it is more likely to go back to the historical Jesus.

The third, contextual credibility, has to do with an understanding of the historical context of Jesus’ time; is this saying the sort of thing a first century Jewish apocalyptic teacher would have said? For comparison, if historians uncovered a document claiming that George Washington was worried about the creation of a military-industrial complex, it would be readily apparent that the document could not be historically accurate. The idea of a military-industrial complex was not extant before the time of Eisenhower, so it makes no sense in the context of Washington’s time, and therefore cannot be taken as historically credible.

So with these two tools used in tandem, what can they show us about the passage in Matthew? First of all, it fails the test of contextual credibility by the fact that it makes reference to “the church.” Historians agree that the historical Jesus was thoroughly Jewish in orientation, and was not seeking to found a new religion or religious institution apart from Judaism. Therefore his stated intention of “build[ing] my church” is not credible in the context of the historical Jesus. Second, it fails the test of dissimilarity, because later followers of Jesus (including the author of Matthew) would have had a motive for inventing it. Dale Martin, in his Yale lecture on the Gospel of Matthew, argues that this passage was created to depict Jesus as being the founder of the Church. Followers of Jesus at the time that the movement was beginning to separate from Judaism were concerned with how their distinct new entity, the Church, should be organized. The author of Matthew sought to assure readers in his community that the Church as it was organized among them was as it had been set up by Jesus himself. This is further evidenced in Matthew chapter 18, verses 15-20.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Here again, Jesus discussing how the Church should be organized is contextually not credible, since the emergence of the Church as an institution rather than a loose collection of followers dates from after his death. But Matthew wants to reaffirm the idea that the rules followed by his Church date back to Jesus’ own words on the matter, an idea that consequently does not pass the criterion of dissimilarity, since there is a strong motivation for Matthew to invent these passages.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 01:32:42 c68b1c No.844216

>>844215

Petros and Petra

This is all we really need to dismiss the notion of Petrine supremacy and consequently Papal supremacy as having any basis in historical fact. However, I want to address one last game that Catholic apologists like to play with the passage in Matthew. Since the 16th century, Protestant theologians working with the older Greek versions of the New Testament have pointed out the difference between the Greek name for Peter (Petros) and the Greek word used in the passage for rock (petra). These Protestant theologians have long made the case that Jesus’ words in the text draw a distinction between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra) on which Jesus will build his Church. Since it would be improper to refer to Peter, a man, as the feminine petra, Peter cannot therefore be the rock Jesus is referring to; this is instead identified as Peter’s declaration that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

Catholic apologists have tried to get around this by pointing out that Jesus would not have said these words to Peter in Greek, but in Aramaic, where the word used for both Peter and “the rock” in this passage would have been cephas. This for them shows that Jesus was not distinguishing between Peter and the rock, and that Peter himself is the rock that Jesus spoke of building his Church on. However, far from supporting the Catholic position, this argument in fact undermines it further.

First, note how the play on words that is necessary for the passage’s comparison of Peter and “the rock” to make sense can only occur in Greek; thus for Jesus’ saying here to make sense, he himself must have spoken it in Greek. But as we have already noted, scholars are in agreement that it is incredibly unlikely that the historical Jesus was fluent in Greek, making it even less contextually credible (to draw again upon the third criterion) that the historical Jesus actually said this. Rather, it again shows that this passage was likely inserted into Mark’s version of the story by the Greek-speaking author of Matthew (all the gospels were originally written in Greek), who of course would have understood the play on words he was using with Petros and petra.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 02:55:32 6030fc No.844218

Everything in this post but the Petros/Petra distinction is liberal higher criticism, and the Petros Petra section is not a very compelling example of this argument.

All scripture is God breathed. There is no quotation of Jesus in the Bible that is not "likely to be historical". The first two sections of this are devoted to attacking statements of Jesus as unreliable based on their repetition in other passages or seeing one as superceded by another that's allegedly in tension.

The last point rests it's argument on the idea that the "historical Jesus" did not know Greek, which is both bad hermeneutics and totally unnecessary.

The Greek scripture is inspired, and it does not imply Peter is the petra upon which the church is built. Simple as.

I found that this was copied from r/excatholics by searching a section, which I expect is primarily a bunch of liberals with gripes about the Roman church. I see faggot flags and liberal denomination tags.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 11:17:28 1da01e No.844241

What a joke of a post

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 15:58:37 e23126 No.844252

>>844218

>>844241

what is your arguments

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 16:07:20 365e3e No.844253

>>844216

>But as we have already noted, scholars are in agreement that it is incredibly unlikely that the historical Jesus was fluent in Greek,

Scholars are impious retards. City planning of Galille shows it was a city rebuilt by the Greco-roman bureaucracy with a Greek speaking majority. Jews were a minority there.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 16:10:59 6030fc No.844255

>>844252

I already presented my argument

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 17:21:51 e23126 No.844267

>>844255

>yeah but the bible is true and scholars are liberal so checkmate

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 17:58:43 6030fc No.844270

>>844267

Is that what you read?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 18:17:22 e23126 No.844272

>>844270

Well the argument regarding petros/petra is sound but could you further elaborate on liberal higher criticism

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

Wow. Another Catholic hate thread. † 08/27/20 (Thu) 19:15:28 42cd40 No.844276

File: e0dacee82dde46a⋯.jpg (44.63 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, children_this_is_bait.jpg)

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 19:25:09 6030fc No.844279

>>844272

The version of higher criticism demonstrated in the post explicitly states a rejection of the verbal, plenary inspiration of scripture in search of a "historical Jesus" who's actual teachings aren't found in the pages of scripture

It's like I said already but here's an article https://carm.org/what-is-higher-criticism-and-the-historical-critical-method-of-examining-the-bible

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 19:30:40 6030fc No.844282

>>844276

Calling any post against your position bait or hate just makes you seem fragile

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 20:32:12 1da01e No.844287

>>844252

The Gospel isn't just the average of the four, and because one passage isn't found in the 3 others that doesn't mean that it never occured.

>Now, it is nearly universally agreed upon by New Testament scholars that the Gospel of Mark predates Matthew

Well, New Testament scholars are nearly universally wrong anyways. The only reason why their methodology comes to that conclusion is because Mark is the shortest one. In their attempt to dismember the Gospel they use flawed methodology that treats the gospel as if it were simple eye-witness accounts developed over centuries. They use modern methodology from secular enviroments that doesn't work on an ancient culture of high theology and the different fields of theology that the evangelists focussed on, or what they found necessary to include in their gospel. As John said in John 21:24-25.

>is this saying the sort of thing a first century Jewish apocalyptic teacher would have said?

Obviously not, since nobody except the New Testament scholars actually believe that Jesus was that, since everywhere else they would have been rightfully laughed away. How much historical inaccuracies can they swallow? They are the same people that would call Moses or Abraham a Jew.

>Historians agree that the historical Jesus was thoroughly Jewish in orientation, and was not seeking to found a new religion or religious institution apart from Judaism.

Historians erroneously conclude this from the flawed presupposition that Jesus is supposed to be a Jew, while turning an eye on scripture. But make no mistake, Jesus knew that he was the Christ that Moses and Abraham foresaw. And thereby he didn't found a new religion, since Moses and Abraham already were Christians and not Jews. He only fullfilled what Isaiah prophetised of the deeds of the Messias.

>This is all we really need to dismiss the notion of Petrine supremacy and consequently Papal supremacy as having any basis in historical fact.

>First, note how the play on words that is necessary for the passage’s comparison of Peter and “the rock” to make sense can only occur in Greek; thus for Jesus’ saying here to make sense, he himself must have spoken it in Greek

Again the author gives no reason as for why this must be the case and states this as if it were simple fact. Jesus could have simply said "you are the cephas and upon this cephas I will build my church" and it wouldn't make a difference. Or whatever the equivalent in Aramaeic would be

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 21:03:09 365e3e No.844290

>>844287

To even talk about the Petros/Petra meme is a smokescreen. This doesn't change that papal primacy has neither historical nor practical basis. Peter and Paul also consolidated Antioch prior to Rome, but they never claimed primacy on account Peter. Which would be also strange, since if any apostle were to be considered primal, he would be John.

It simply does not compute.

It also does not have a positive function of promoting unity, if it had anytime - not anymore. Melkites and Maronites are also considered in communion despite that with them there are three conflicting theologies within the same congregation. "Eastern catholics" should be more than enough proof that the Pope does not even care to promote spiritual unity, it's just about secular allegiances.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/27/20 (Thu) 23:12:14 2234cb No.844293

>>844279

interesting, thanks

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/28/20 (Fri) 11:55:39 1da01e No.844328

>>844290

Peter's primacy has the simple basis, that Jesus Christ explicitly referred to him as the apostle that he would found his church on, and the apostle that would tend his sheep and feed his sheep. This role has been fullfilled since then by the Bishop of Rome to the church as a whole. In all the listings of the apostles he is called the principal (protos) apostle.

Rome is the spot where Peter taught and resided as bishop until his death. It was also the spot where Peter wrote the different letters of the Bible.

Antioch and Alexandria had a special place in the church as the Sees founded by Peter, which why they would traditionally rank immediately after Rome until Constantinople was put on the second place.

The Melkites and Maronites have the same theology as the rest of the Catholic Church. Point out where they are supposed to have 3 differen theologies in the same congregation.

Where have the Easterners ever promoted unity toward them in the west? When did they ever do reuniting works such as the council of Florence? The Eastern Catholics are the Catholics of the eastern part of the Church, who have been reunited with the Bishop of Rome. Meanwhile, Western Orthodox do simply not exist, or are very marginal, while entire peoples such as the Chaldeans are in communion with Peter.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/28/20 (Fri) 12:01:09 6030fc No.844329

>>844328

>Jesus Christ explicitly referred to him as the apostle that he would found his church on,

Except he didn't

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/28/20 (Fri) 12:20:32 1da01e No.844330

>>844329

Well he didn't if you never read the Bible.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/28/20 (Fri) 12:32:45 6030fc No.844331

>>844330

The rock upon which the church is built is not Peter

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/28/20 (Fri) 16:31:23 365e3e No.844339

>>844328

So? One could interpret many other things from the Bible if he's dishonest enough. One could say that peter drowning is a sign that the Roman Catholic Church would fall away from the faith, but no one says that because no one else is making post-hoc arguments to justify an already formed position.

Again, bishops are not the church. Just because some bishops of different groups come closer, it is not necessarily a sign of the groups coming closer but it is usually a sign of one bishop going away from the faith. It hurts me in my temple when I try to talk about spirituality not being consistent and all people want to talk about is a he-said-she-said of politicians and individuals.

There is no spiritual unity among Roman Catholics and many of them have said it in this board. Prayer and liturgy is not unified, thus theology is not unified. My state has Ukranians that immigrated to the americas and founded a parish but didn't even know they weren't canonically orthodox until they met canonically orthodox serbs. It is pure dishonesty to believe they were Roman Catholics at any point in time. Likewise, the "Eastern Catholics" are not in spiritual communion with you. Grace does not conform to the organization, it is the organization that works to conform to it. Nevertheless, Roman Catholics believe in created grace, so you wouldn't understand me.

My argument is that doesn't matter that they bow to the same bureaucracy, the bureaucracy is not the church but a wordly tool it uses.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/29/20 (Sat) 07:11:22 5b2c6a No.844374

>>844331

>The rock upon which the church is built is not Peter

Orthodox here.

Depends on which patristic writer you ask.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

† 08/29/20 (Sat) 23:14:02 e23126 No.844440

>>844328

Does Rome being moved to Constantinople mean anything?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.