H
hondo2
Guest
did Peter make a doctrinal error when Paul corrected him at Antioch?
Also relate Galatians2 with Acts15
Also relate Galatians2 with Acts15
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
No. He didn’t practice what he preached.
F
FCEGM
Guest
Welcome to CAF
No, Peter made no doctrinal error. See this earlier post on the subject:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4109743&postcount=11
R
ryanoneil
Guest
scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html#scripture-I
Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. Paul was criticizing Peter’s conduct, not his teaching authority. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope’s private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority.
I believe Peter’s conduct can be viewed as legitimate. Peter had a mission to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was therefore very concerned about how the Gentiles were evangelized. Paul viewed Peter’s conduct as a possible scandal to the Gentile’s evangelization. However, Peter had his own reasons. In the book of Acts, we read that the Jews were angry that Peter was dining with Gentiles. They could not understand this, since they always viewed themselves as having a preferential position with God. Peter was trying to pacify them for the moment by trying to make the best out of a difficult situation.
Paul probably should have known this. Paul did the very same thing, and Peter could have just as easily called Paul a hypocrite. Paul engaged in the Jewish purification ritual, and also had Timothy circumcised, even though Paul perennially taught that we were now free from the law of Moses. Why did he do this? For pastoral reasons. He was reaching out to the Jews, while trying to evangelize the Gentiles. Peter did the same thing.
Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. Paul was criticizing Peter’s conduct, not his teaching authority. Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope’s private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority.
I believe Peter’s conduct can be viewed as legitimate. Peter had a mission to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was therefore very concerned about how the Gentiles were evangelized. Paul viewed Peter’s conduct as a possible scandal to the Gentile’s evangelization. However, Peter had his own reasons. In the book of Acts, we read that the Jews were angry that Peter was dining with Gentiles. They could not understand this, since they always viewed themselves as having a preferential position with God. Peter was trying to pacify them for the moment by trying to make the best out of a difficult situation.
Paul probably should have known this. Paul did the very same thing, and Peter could have just as easily called Paul a hypocrite. Paul engaged in the Jewish purification ritual, and also had Timothy circumcised, even though Paul perennially taught that we were now free from the law of Moses. Why did he do this? For pastoral reasons. He was reaching out to the Jews, while trying to evangelize the Gentiles. Peter did the same thing.
H
hondo2
Guest
thanks
I’m pleased with the responses so far
Do you think Paul was in order to publicly reprimand him?
I’m pleased with the responses so far
Do you think Paul was in order to publicly reprimand him?
P
promethius
Guest
There is no church teaching which states that when a pope is living in error that any bishop whatsoever can’t rebuke him, either publicly or privately. While it may have been rude of him to do so in public, we must also consider that the story comes from Paul’s perspective, and may not have been as overheard as many readers think.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I think that was Paul’s style. God knew this when He called Paul.
So Paul did what he felt needed to be done. I’ve no problem with that!
- Status