Actually, it says the assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul, it doesn’t say they shut up when Peter spoke. (Acts 15:6-12). Furthermore, James speaks before the matter is ‘settled’. I’m not sure what source you’re using when you say Peter relates a story and the assembly shuts up and the matter is settled. .
Acts 15:6-12 says this:
“6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.”
Notice there was much debate and after this Peter stands and speaks and Act 12 says:
“12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.”
Notice they kept their silence that was the silence they commenced when Peter spoke. They then remained silent when Paul and Barnabus spoke. As for the source I am using it is what I quoted from Acts 15:6-12. But here allow me to pull out what Peter says beginning in verse 7:
“Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
That is what settles the issue of whether Gentile converts are to be first circumcized. What James adds has nothing to do with that issue. Instead he first backs up Peter. Look at verses 13-18:
". 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, 16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, 17 that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, 18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.’
Then James adds this as an adendum to the issue of circumcision before baptism:
“19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues.”
Secondly, Peter had formerly been erring in regard to this same type of Gentile issue. Galatians 2:11 shows Paul correcting Peter about a crucial issue at the time. In my mind, this passage alone cuts the legs right off any grounds for Papal Supremacy.
Apparently to you “Papal Supremacy” means Peter has to be sinless. To You “Papal Supremacy” equals “Papal Impeccability”. Now you show me where that is a doctrine of the Catholic Church because it is not. The Doctrine is Papal Infallibility. Understand correctly what it is and what it is not. It means that the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when certain conditions exist. He must speak as Pope intending to teach to the whole church not just a part of it. It has to be a matter involving faith and morals. The doctrine is stated thusly:
"“when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church”.
Is this novel? No, all christians will argue that when the authors of scripture wrote they were protected from error by the Holy Spirit also. Asfor the incident you bring up of when Paul rebuked Peter, you tell me what was Peter teaching or defining. Anything? NO, he was sitting down for a meal. Personal sin has nothing to do with it. In the 2000 years since Peter there have been a bunch of very unholy popes who committed sins of all types. Yet when protestant scholars investigate them they cannot find even one solitary instance of when a pope taught error. Not one! Your problem is you are against something you have no understanding of, something that does not exist. Understand Catholicism for what it really is and not some made up protestant fairy tale.
