Does Gal 2:11-14 Contradict Papal Infallibiltiy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jetlag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jetlag

Guest
I thought that the Pope must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. Does Galations 2: 11-14 contradict papal infallibility? Why did Paul have to correct Peter’s teachings in Antioch if Peter is Cephas and the first Pope?
 
Here, Paul is not correcting Peter’s teachings. Rather, he is admonishing Peter’s actions, because Peter is acting in contradiction to the message he preaches. Paul doesn’t seem to have any difficulty with Peter’s teachings here.
 
Hi Jetlag

Let us not confuse infallibility and impeccability. I have seen people on this forum criticize the pope. So I am not surprised that St. Paul should have done so. St. Peter had not made an authoritative pronouncement; he had just acted out of human respect. St. Paul, who had no inferiority complex pointed this out to him.

Verbum
 
Folks
You must know that scripture tells us there is no infallibiltiy with humans. The ONLY WAY any of us can be made ‘‘perfect’’ or ‘‘righteous’’ is because JESUS gives us the gift of HIS righteousness when we are saved. Being ‘‘born again’’ means that we take the LIFE HE gives us and we are made ''ALIVE" from spiritual darkness or deadness. IF we are saved we are just as perfect as Peter and Paul were because they were also given the gift of HIS righteousness. Study the book of Romans----it is SO very good and ask the LORD to open your eyes to what HE wants to do for you.
Sincerely June
 
40.png
June1945:
Folks
You must know that scripture tells us there is no infallibiltiy with humans.
Click to expand...
In general this is true but not in every case. The Holy Spirit can make humans infallible. The prophets of the Old Testament prophesied infallible. That’s how we know they were true prophets. Also, if Jesus’ prayers were answered, then Peter’s faith would not fail, i.e. Peter’s faith was from then on infallible. (Luke 22:32) There is no reason to believe that humans can not teach the faith infallibly. Jesus told his Apostles, whoever hears you, hears me. (Luke 10:16) If Jesus could teach infallibly, his Apostles, aided by the spirit of all truth, could do so too. You do believe that Jesus could teach infallibly, don’t you? Not only could the Apostles teach the faith infallibly by their spoken words (Sacred Oral Tradition), they (Matthew, John, James, and Peter) and others (Mark, Luke, Paul, and Jude) could also write about it infallibly (Sacred Written Tradition). The New Testament is the infallible teachings of Jesus and the Apostles written by humans who were aided by the Holy Spirit. Or do you not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? The ability to teach the faith infallibly remains with the Church even today in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, made up of the Catholic bishops in union with Peter’s successor, the bishop of Rome (the Pope). As Scripture says, "And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, … so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. (Ephesians 4:11,14) When these bishops of the Church, who are referred to as the presbyters or *the elders *in Acts 15:2,4,6, etc., meet in council to consider questions of faith and morals, their solemn decisions are aided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) and so are infallible and to be observed. (Acts 16:4) The gift of teaching infallibly to the teachers of the Church is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, the Church would fall into error and the gates of Hades would thus prevail against the Church which would be contrary to the promise of Jesus in Matthew 16:18.
 
I would like to point out those who have trouble accepting or whose acceptance causes them trouble, about the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church to consider this. Papal infalibility is often rejected using scripture as the source.
However, the actual written word is a human product, however, they seem to have no problem accepting the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Scriptural authors. Yet, I don’t remember Jesus saying to any of his followers to “Write this down”. But there are plenty of refrences for his disciples to teach what they were taught along with the promise of the Holy Spirit.
 
Hi June,

I have one question for you.

When the Twelve Apostles and Paul preached and taught the Gospel, did the Holy Spirit protect them from speaking error? In other words, when they opened their mouths to proclaim God’s Truth, were they infallible?

Please use Scripture.

Blessings,

Gene
 
Don’t forget that Peter was not the first Pope to be counseled, chided, even commanded. What about St Catherine of Siena? She wrote many times to Popes Gergory XI and Urban VI. Far from resenting reproof, Pope Urban VI actually summoned her to Rome that he might profit by her advice.

Her actions were because of her belief in and support of Papal authority.

Sometimes Popes need to be reminded strongly “Tu es Petrus”
 
This is a follow up to an earlier post. I hadn’t completed my thoughts before I was called away from my computer. As for Gal 2: 11 - 14 it seems, from my past experience that many don’t read past the words " I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong".(Gal 2:11) (one quick side note - isn’t it interesting that Paul calls Peter “Cephas”? - but that’s the subject for another Thread). I one reads on it will become evident right away what Paul was refering to was not a matter of Doctrine but of Behavior - Cephas’ behavior of giving in to the delegation sent by James in Jerusalem. These men were part of the early Church as the followers of the fulfillment of the Promise to Israel of a Savior/Massiah - Jesus. Thus, all followers of Christ must practice the Law, that is we are Jews and nothing else. Peter had acguiesce to this groups demands and had stopped eating meals with Christian who were originally pagans but did not practice in full the Mosaic Law. This drove Paul nuts and thus Paul’s rebuke. Again a rebuke about behavior Not doctrine. Therefore, there is no contradiction at all, just a errant premise.

And on the lighter side Peter was the first Pope to be Chided, but as you pointed out not the last, but like Peter, isn’t it interesting that the reprimands of Popes is usually grounded in their behavior and not doctrine?
 
Hi June,

I assume you’re not a catholic, I love your profile - “born again and saved forever”! I’m not a catholic either, but Todd Easton makes an interesting point, don’t you think?
I have a catholic friend who’s been asking me a similar question- the new testament writers must have had some kind of infallibility to write the scriptures which are inerrant. In your opinion, where do you think this authority came from and why did only certain people seem to have it? When did this end, because scripture is not being written any more. Sorry to go away from the original question a little.
 
It’s key to remember that Peter knew, and taught, correctly, he just wasn’t following his own (and the other Apostles) teaching on the matter of Salvation and the Church. He was setting a bad example to the other believers, an example that contradicted his own teachings. Paul wasn’t correcting Peter on teaching, he was reminding him of it. Even Paul makes this clear in Galatians.

It is the duty of Christians to correct eachother when we lapse, based on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. That’s all Paul was doing 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top