Because it's not recommended to us, therefore it must necessarily have been private and personal? It's not recommended to us because Peter was wrong, period. Peter's denial of Christ was PUBLIC, after all, not "private" and merely "personal." Yet Peter was wrong, because not even the Apostles were infallible, but only those things which they spoke and wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and which have been preserved for us in Holy Scripture.
Sir, perhaps we're not connecting because we have two differing definitions of "private." For instance, Pope John Paul expressed certain "private" beliefs in his book, Crossing The Threshold Of Hope. And as you know, the book went on to be published and became an instant best seller, so in a sense, his beliefs were publicized.
Perhaps you missed the point I made earlier that the Pope is considered inerrant when he addresses the church in an official capacity and renders judgements of doctrinal and administrative matters. None of Peter's recorded indescretions fits this criteria.
I have already acknowledged that popes can indeed sin and even live scandelous lives as some of them have. Peter was very wrong in what he did, and no, the Church isn't trying to whitewash what he did.
Quote
not even the Apostles were infallible, but only those things which they spoke and wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which have been preserved for us in Holy Scripture.
Right on! I see we're really not arguing the main point about Peter. You seem to understand perfectly.
carpe ceravesaSeize the beer! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />
