Authority of Peter vs. Paul

[trumpet152]

If Paul (being an apostle) had infallible authority, what separated him from Peter? Paul’s words were considered doctrine; Peter was words were considered doctrine. So Paul also had Papal authority? (This is absurd, I know, but the question was posed to me by a friend.)

 

[Sherlock]

trumpet152:

If Paul (being an apostle) had infallible authority, what separated him from Peter? Paul’s words were considered doctrine; Peter was words were considered doctrine. So Paul also had Papal authority? (This is absurd, I know, but the question was posed to me by a friend.)

Jesus didn’t give the keys to St. Paul.

 

[DeFide]

trumpet152:

If Paul (being an apostle) had infallible authority, what separated him from Peter? Paul’s words were considered doctrine; Peter was words were considered doctrine. So Paul also had Papal authority? (This is absurd, I know, but the question was posed to me by a friend.)

Perhaps you could site a Church document that states that any apostle other than Peter had infallible teaching authority of his own.

I know the Church has canonized Books written by Paul, but that is quite a different thing than saying he had an office equivalent to Peter, the holder of the Keys.

 

[Todd_Easton]

When Paul wanted to confirm the gospel he was preaching “lest he should be running or had run in vain,” he tells us he went to the reputed pillars of the Church: James, Cephas (Peter), and John. (Galatians 2:1-10) This seems to indicate that Paul was submitting himself to their authority.

 

[Wisdom]

In catholic theology if a bishop is in union with the bishop of Rome who has the keys to the kingdom and submits to his autority he does have the power to bind and loose. That would seem to be the case with Paul who did go back to Peter to seek instruction. They were certainly in communion with each other. It was not a case of Peter vs Paul but a case of Paul in communion with Peter thus giving himself authority by being in communion with the office of Peter.