Petrine Supremacy

[Insight]

I don’t agree that Peter had made a mistake.

Of course you don't agree. Admitting Peter made a mistake is admitting he did not carry authority in the way you would like him to have.
Read my response below.

Yes, the issue was decided. The debate had concluded with Peter’s speech and they move on to other matters.

What other matters? Can you show me that the assembly was about multiple matters?
Acts 15:5-6 "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

[Scott1]

A question for you Scott . You have said : " I listen to MY Patriarch and my Bishop . " What does your Patriarch teach about the dogma of Papal Supremacy as defined by the First Vatican Council ?

Come on , beam yourself up , Scotty .

Not for the first time have I asked you this or a similar question , but you seem to be reticent in answering .

Sorry ... missed this trying to avoid some of the nonsense posts on this thread.

I don't have a quote for you - so I suppose I don't know.

Some EC bishops are quite vocal or both sides of the issue - not sure why this is important to you.

"Most" - in my opinion view the Latin teachings with respect - but simply toss aside any doctrinal issues as "problems in definition".

[Paulus]

A question for you Scott . You have said : " I listen to MY Patriarch and my Bishop . " What does your Patriarch teach about the dogma of Papal Supremacy as defined by the First Vatican Council ?

Come on , beam yourself up , Scotty .

Not for the first time have I asked you this or a similar question , but you seem to be reticent in answering .

I don't have a quote for you - so I suppose I don't know.

Some EC bishops are quite vocal or both sides of the issue - not sure why this is important to you.

It's important to me because I want my knowledge of Catholicism to grow , and part of that growth would be to know what a Catholic Patriarch teaches . Simple as that .

[Scott1]

A question for you Scott . You have said : " I listen to MY Patriarch and my Bishop . " What does your Patriarch teach about the dogma of Papal Supremacy as defined by the First Vatican Council ?

Come on , beam yourself up , Scotty .

Not for the first time have I asked you this or a similar question , but you seem to be reticent in answering .

I don't have a quote for you - so I suppose I don't know.

Some EC bishops are quite vocal or both sides of the issue - not sure why this is important to you.

It's important to me because I want my knowledge of Catholicism to grow , and part of that growth would be to know what a Catholic Patriarch teaches . Simple as that .

Gotcha ... guess it was "reticent" that got my goofy brain working!  Hehe

Will ask my Bishop when I speak to him later tonight.

[Insight]

Sorry ... missed this trying to avoid some of the nonsense posts on this thread.

Better understood to read "Sorry....missed this trying to avoid all the truth being posted in this thread" 

How have you found the insightful exposition of Gal 2 and Acts 15?

Many well read and studied seem to be enjoying the hidden gems? But it appears you would sell these for some pottage? or should we call it Church Dogma?

Insight

[winsome]

I don’t agree that Peter had made a mistake.

Of course you don't agree. Admitting Peter made a mistake is admitting he did not carry authority in the way you would like him to have.
Read my response below.

Yes, the issue was decided. The debate had concluded with Peter’s speech and they move on to other matters.

What other matters? Can you show me that the assembly was about multiple matters?
Acts 15:5-6 "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

[Insight]

I don’t agree that Peter had made a mistake.

Of course you don't agree. Admitting Peter made a mistake is admitting he did not carry authority in the way you would like him to have.
Read my response below.

Yes, the issue was decided. The debate had concluded with Peter’s speech and they move on to other matters.

What other matters? Can you show me that the assembly was about multiple matters?
Acts 15:5-6 "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

[Insight]

A question for you Scott . You have said : " I listen to MY Patriarch and my Bishop . " What does your Patriarch teach about the dogma of Papal Supremacy as defined by the First Vatican Council ?

Come on , beam yourself up , Scotty .

Not for the first time have I asked you this or a similar question , but you seem to be reticent in answering .

I don't have a quote for you - so I suppose I don't know.

Some EC bishops are quite vocal or both sides of the issue - not sure why this is important to you.

It's important to me because I want my knowledge of Catholicism to grow , and part of that growth would be to know what a Catholic Patriarch teaches . Simple as that .

Gotcha ... guess it was "reticent" that got my goofy brain working!  Hehe

Will ask my Bishop when I speak to him later tonight.

There is the problem with the church "Will ask my Bishop when I speak to him later tonight"

When he tells you the same lies that he swallowed where will this leave you Scott?

[n2thelight]

It is not that the Pope is infallible in his own personal strength and power, or make decision on his own personal authority

When and which pope ever said something ex cathedra,and what was it?

[Scott1]

It is not that the Pope is infallible in his own personal strength and power, or make decision on his own personal authority

When and which pope ever said something ex cathedra,and what was it?

Catholics debate this quite a bit... most will tell you that infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950.

Some will say that papal canonizations of saints are infallible (I don't agree) and some will assert that just about everything the Pope says (from the Wed. audiences to his lunch menu) is infallible.

If you read a modern document (post-Vat I) and read the words  “we define

[winsome]

I don’t agree that Peter had made a mistake.

Of course you don't agree. Admitting Peter made a mistake is admitting he did not carry authority in the way you would like him to have.
Read my response below.

Yes, the issue was decided. The debate had concluded with Peter’s speech and they move on to other matters.

What other matters? Can you show me that the assembly was about multiple matters?
Acts 15:5-6 "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

[Insight]

I don’t agree that Peter had made a mistake.

Of course you don't agree. Admitting Peter made a mistake is admitting he did not carry authority in the way you would like him to have.
Read my response below.

Yes, the issue was decided. The debate had concluded with Peter’s speech and they move on to other matters.

What other matters? Can you show me that the assembly was about multiple matters?
Acts 15:5-6 "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

[neophyte]

Insight, your understanding of Holy Scripture would be completely foreign to the early Christians, never mind the pagans.

[highrigger]

Catholics debate this quite a bit... most will tell you that infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950.

Some will say that papal canonizations of saints are infallible (I don't agree) and some will assert that just about everything the Pope says (from the Wed. audiences to his lunch menu) is infallible.

If you read a modern document (post-Vat I) and read the words  “we define

[LightHammer]

Catholics debate this quite a bit... most will tell you that infallibility has been invoked by popes only twice: by Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 (16 years before papal infallibility itself was actually defined at Vatican I), and by Pius XII, in defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950.

Some will say that papal canonizations of saints are infallible (I don't agree) and some will assert that just about everything the Pope says (from the Wed. audiences to his lunch menu) is infallible.

If you read a modern document (post-Vat I) and read the words  “we define