If Peter was infallible why did they need the Council of Jerusalem?

[Shirtless]

In discussing the papacy with an Orthodox, the following came up: In 50 AD, the Council of Jerusalem was convened. It decided that Gentile converts were not subject to certain aspects of the Mosaic law (e.g. circumcision). The Orthodox had this question. If Peter was the first Pope, and was conceded to have supreme infallible power to decide matters of faith and morals, why did they bother to convene the council? Why didn’t they just ask Peter? How should I respond to this question?

 

[Fr.Charles_Grondin]

Its important to remember what infallibility is not. Infallibility does not mean the Pope has all the answers. Infallibility means that when the Pope does give an answer (in matters of faith and morals) the Holy Spirit will guide him to the right one. That is why the Church still has things like Synods.

There are also different styles of leadership. Some people are very forceful and exact, others are more collegial and persuasive. Both styles have their own positives and negatives. But just because a leader chooses to direct a dispute in a dialogue style does not make him less in charge.

The 12 apostles were a kind of “band of brothers.” They went through thick and thin together, it would seem odd and borderline insulting if St. Peter forced his opinion on the other Apostles without friendly dialogue and debate.

Some situations are very complicated and the Pope doesn’t always have a ready answer. Its at those times he listens to advisers and brother Bishops. The decision is ultimately the Pope’s but he still seeks to build consensus.

At the Council of Jerusalem the issues of Papal Infallibility or Papal Supremacy do not arise. The Apostles are all able to agree together and thus there is no need for an intervention from St. Peter.

For further reading: Was James the Real Leader of the Early Church?