Distributism

[Timothy Bonney]

And you've still not shown why Peter, of all people, should be infallible. He was actually one of the more fallible Disciples in the New Testament.

[Matto]

And you've still not shown why Peter, of all people, should be infallible. He was actually one of the more fallible Disciples in the New Testament.

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,c and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesd will not overcome it.e 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bef bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beg loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ."

God the Father revealed Infallibly to Peter who Jesus was, when the other disciples were opinioning and speculating on this matter of the faith.
Peter made the first Infallible statement of the Church, on the identity of Jesus.
Jesus didn't say who He was, He asked the question, and God the Father spoke through Peter alone the Infallible Truth.
On the matters of faith Peter is given direct revelation and guidance from God the Father, which he communicates to the rest.
Peter is a weak man, and there are many accounts of his weakness, however he is the mouthpiece of God the Father when it comes to questions of the faith.
Speculation and opinion is not enough.

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D.256).

Protestantism has human founded government and all conflicted on matters of faith. Where as the Chair Peter is the Divinely established Government by Jesus Himself.
Whilst Protestantism continues scattering the Chair of Peter still stands after 2000 years, sustained by Christs promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

[Matto]

No the Catholic Church has always held to the same Apostolic beliefs from the beginning.

No, your assumption. Not historical fact.

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, depositing in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth." Irenaeus 180 AD.

All a Catholic does is hold to the Apostolic Tradition of Truth handed down to us. The Catholic Church defines the tradition already handed down to us from the Apostles.
If people find themselves constructing a theology, then it is not the faith that the Apostles handed on.
If we truly are Christ's flock, then our only obligation is to graze his pastures and listen to His voice through Peter, who is set in charge of us by Christ.

"And so he too rejoices over your good feeling and welcomes your respect for the Lord’s own institution as shown towards the partners of His honour, commending the well ordered love of the whole Church, which ever finds Peter in Peter's See, and from affection for so great a shepherd grows not lukewarm even over so inferior a successor as myself." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 2 (A.D ante 461).

If people are constructing, they need to ask themselves what they are constructing.

[Dave Roberts]

When the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 was held, why did the church not look to Peter but instead looked to James, the half-brother of Jesus, to lead the conference? Peter was a participant, but not the one who provided the answer. Shouldn't the apostles, if what you say is true, have looked to Peter and not one outside the 12 (13) for answers.

[Timothy Bonney]

When the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 was held, why did the church not look to Peter but instead looked to James, the half-brother of Jesus, to lead the conference? Peter was a participant, but not the one who provided the answer. Shouldn't the apostles, if what you say is true, have looked to Peter and not one outside the 12 (13) for answers.

Very good question Dave.

Also you might notice that in a conversation between the Apostle Paul and Peter in which Peter was refusing to eat with gentiles Paul rebuked Peter. Now how is it that Paul can rebuke Peter if Peter is the head of the Church?

And even if Peter were the head of the Church that does not then confer the same authority on successors of Peter. Jesus made no mention of a papacy, of Peter becoming the Bishop of Rome, or of future Bishops of Rome having primacy.

[Dave Roberts]

When the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 was held, why did the church not look to Peter but instead looked to James, the half-brother of Jesus, to lead the conference? Peter was a participant, but not the one who provided the answer. Shouldn't the apostles, if what you say is true, have looked to Peter and not one outside the 12 (13) for answers.

Very good question Dave.

Also you might notice that in a conversation between the Apostle Paul and Peter in which Peter was refusing to eat with gentiles Paul rebuked Peter. Now how is it that Paul can rebuke Peter if Peter is the head of the Church?

And even if Peter were the head of the Church that does not then confer the same authority on successors of Peter. Jesus made no mention of a papacy, of Peter becoming the Bishop of Rome, or of future Bishops of Rome having primacy.

Minor historical details-

[Timothy Bonney]

Minor historical details-

[Matto]

When the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 was held, why did the church not look to Peter but instead looked to James, the half-brother of Jesus, to lead the conference? Peter was a participant, but not the one who provided the answer. Shouldn't the apostles, if what you say is true, have looked to Peter and not one outside the 12 (13) for answers.

This gathering was what would be later termed an ecumenical council, where all the leaders in the Church assembled on matters of Faith. This is what happened all the way to Vatican II, in all the ecumenical councils.
Peter spoke decisively on the matter after the Pharisee party recommended that Gentiles be forced to follow the Law of Moses, after which the whole assembly kept silence.
What happened then was just re enforcement of Peters ruling.

Note that all the discussion of the parties in the council ended, after Peter made his declaration, and the whole assembly kept silence. Peter decided the matter.

[Matto]

Also you might notice that in a conversation between the Apostle Paul and Peter in which Peter was refusing to eat with gentiles Paul rebuked Peter. Now how is it that Paul can rebuke Peter if Peter is the head of the Church?

Paul rebuked Peter on his conduct, not on his teaching regarding the Gentiles.
It was hypocritical behavior that Peter separated from the Gentiles for regard of the Jews, after saying that " God showed no partiality between us and them " there was Peter showing partiality.

So what Peter declared was correct, but his behavior did not reflect it. And Paul was right to get in his face over it.

[Matto]

And even if Peter were the head of the Church that does not then confer the same authority on successors of Peter. Jesus made no mention of a papacy, of Peter becoming the Bishop of Rome, or of future Bishops of Rome having primacy.

When Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, and giving him the power of binding and loosing, it was a reference to Isaiah 22, the disciples would have recognized it instantly.
This event in Isaiah is the conferring of prime ministerial office over Israel under the King, which also had successors.

20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father.

Besides the Church fathers show that the Chair of Peter is an office with successors.

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

[Dave Roberts]

Matto, what does a good Catholic say about the Avignon Papacy?

[Matto]

Matto, what does a good Catholic say about the Avignon Papacy?

What about it Dave ?