I’m asking because he didn’t have the formalized established priestly heirarchy, firmly established theology or Bible, etc etc
Yes, Peter had papal infallibility.
(Edit: Trimmed out the stuff that had little to do with the topic.)
Says whom? Paul’s rebuke in Galatians wouldn’t make any sense if Peter didn’t have some Authority. You are asserting something that you have offered no evidence for
Acts 1, Acts 15. Galatians 1. Remember that, as a seed was planted, it had to die to give new life. The “Farmer” watered it and tended it, but God gave the growth. So it was with the early Church. However, a review of the chapters above reveal that Peter arranged for the replacement of Judas, that the Council of Jerusalem was held to be infallible - as its decision stands today.
Also, that Saint Paul , after years of solitude and then evangelizing traveled to Jerusalem to ensure that his Gospel accorded with that of Peter - to ensure that he had not labored in vain.
The Power of Binding and Loosing as well is clearly infallible, as it is accepted in heaven. So yes, the infallibility was there, as it was given explicitly by Christ; first to Peter and then to the twelve.
Peter made mistakes.
The understanding of Infallibility of say the pope - only exists within very limited situation
and is commonly gravely ill-understood by Protestants and even some Catholics
Best to explain papal infallibility to the poster before going any further. I think he might think everything they do or say is infallible.
When acting alone - the only time a pope speaks infallibly is when he’s speaking ex cathedra
Doctrines contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment of the Church as divinely revealed truths by any of the following:
a) the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra
b) the College of Bishops gathered in council
c) infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium
Yes but these restrictions wouldn’t apply to St Peter. He and the other apostles had the greater gift of inspiration… they revealed and definitively taught new doctrine and wrote scripture.
Not all of the Word of God NT was Scribed by Apostles.
The Apostles are part of Sacred Apostolic Tradition -
Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle
The Church can and has introduced new Doctrine
Of course him and all successor Pope’s did. Now, whether or not it was exercised is a completely different question.
It would certainly apply to all in the same way (Peter having additional charisms like the other Apostles).
I think the best way to think about this topic is to understand papal infallibility as a necessary consequence the indefectibility of the Church in general and of the primacy being a constituent, permanent element of the Church. The particular church in primacy (the Church of Rome–the Apostolic See) cannot be separated from the universal Church nor the universal Church exist without it. The universal Church therefore must hold the same faith as the Church of Rome.
Should the Church of Rome require an error to be believed in order to have communion with it, either the Church of Rome would defect from the universal Church or the entire Church would defect into error following Rome–and both things are impossible.
Therefore, in as much as the bishop of Rome–the authorized teacher of the Church of Rome–provides a judgment as to a doctrine that must be held in order for all to maintain communion in the Church, it must be true, otherwise it would lead to one of the two impossible conditions above.
Popes do and say tons of stuff–good and evil–that has no bearing on what is necessary for communion in the universal Church. They also sometimes have to make these judgments that must be true for the Church to remain intact as founded (often done collegially as much as possible with their brethren in council or spread throughout the world).