Paul rebukes Peter to his face?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bengeorge
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bengeorge

Guest
In Gal 2:11-16 it is recounted that Paul rebuked Peter to his face for siding with James and the Judaizers…

And in Acts 15, James… not Peter, gets the last word in at the council.

So how does this fit with Petrine supremacy?

And how does Pauls account in Gal2 fit with the account in Acts 15… was it a contiunation of the same story? Are both passages about the same incident? Or about the same problem?

And if so, why is Paul acting as if HE is the final arbitrer of doctrine?
 
Paul (Saul) had a great education, taught by the most oputstanding Rabbi in his territory. He went up the governmantal ladder, all the way to a supervisor of tax collecting for part of Judea. Now my personal opinion is that Paul (Saul) was a very haughty man and likely was quick to speak. I think he thought a lot of himself. His self-confidence wasn’t lacking. It is said that he instigated the stoning of St. Stephen.

Knowing all this, it is not a surprise that Paul would jump up in anyone’s face.

But as the letters of the early fathers show, it was Peter who was recognised as the leader, the Head Apostle. No doubt about it.
 
40.png
bengeorge:
In Gal 2:11-16 it is recounted that Paul rebuked Peter to his face for siding with James and the Judaizers…

And in Acts 15, James… not Peter, gets the last word in at the council.

So how does this fit with Petrine supremacy?

And how does Pauls account in Gal2 fit with the account in Acts 15… was it a contiunation of the same story? Are both passages about the same incident? Or about the same problem?

And if so, why is Paul acting as if HE is the final arbitrer of doctrine?
Paul sees Pope Peter as not living out in his actions the teachings. Paul rebukes Peter for the example he is giving. Popes are not perfect in everything they do. Infallibility does not cover who they eat dinner with! James may have spoken last but Peter announced the decision. This is what we (the Church) and the Holy Spirit have decided.
 
In addition to the excellent responses above, I would add that the Church does not teach that Peter, or any other pope, is perfect and without fault. Peter had many faults recorded in Scripture. Paul rebuked him for it and it was right for him to do so because his example would effect the way that others would act.

James may have said the last thing recorded at the council but did he really get the last word? Is it a sin to have blood as in a really bloody raw steak? Such was forbidden by Jewish Law but is no longer binding on us. Is it still forbidden to require circumcision to become a Christian? Yes. Peter’s declaration was permanently binding. I address such claims at length in posts 37 through 60 of the following thread.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=249396#post249396
 
Would it be correct to see Paul as the prototype for the Doctors of the Church?

The tension that is between Peter and Paul seems somewhat like the occaisional tension between Doctors and Popes…
 
40.png
bengeorge:
Would it be correct to see Paul as the prototype for the Doctors of the Church?

The tension that is between Peter and Paul seems somewhat like the occaisional tension between Doctors and Popes…
There have been cases of laymen and saints rebuking Popes. St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Bernard Clairvaux immediately comes into mind as examples of such saints who admonished Popes.

Gerry 🙂
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Paul sees Pope Peter as not living out in his actions the teachings. Paul rebukes Peter for the example he is giving. Popes are not perfect in everything they do. Infallibility does not cover who they eat dinner with! James may have spoken last but Peter announced the decision. This is what we (the Church) and the Holy Spirit have decided.
I think Br Rich raises a good point… Peter, and his successors, did see (and should see) the value of conciliar decisions. This was the First Apostolic Council, and the Chair of Peter took into account the advice of the Apostolic Council. The decision was conciliar - of the council - and was spoken of and announced as Br Rich noted. It was not a monarchical decision, rather a conciliar one. There is much in this good example of early church governance we can take away from a careful reading of the acounts of it if we will. We need to read the accounts both in Acts and in Galatians.
 
The post above likening Paul to a Doctor of the Church is a good one.

I would also liken James to our Cardinal Prefects who head Vatican Congregations today. As stated, Peter made the doctrinal declaration (everyone fell silent), but James issued the disciplinary pronouncement.

As recently as 2003, we saw this pattern. Pope John Paul II issued a doctrinal encyclical entitled “Ecclessia de Eucharistia” in which he indicated the need for liturgical integrity, and a whole lot of doctrinal matter concerning the Holy Eucharist. But he did not say how to implement such measures to counter abuse. That came from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in the Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum” and was signed by Cardinal Arinze, not the Pope.

Therefore, in an analogy of sorts, Peter issued an “encyclical”; James issued an “Instruction”.
 
I love this thread…beautifully discussed and very very accurate.
THIS is one reason that I LOVE BEING A CATHOLIC!
🙂 😃 😉 :cool: 👍 :yup:
 
I would also point out that in the account in Acts 15, there is “much debate” (v.7), after which Peter stands up and addresses everybody. After Peter speaks “the whole assembly fell silent” (v.12) - debate was over. When James starts speaking, he begins by deferring to what Peter has stated (v.14). It seems crystal clear to me from that sequence of events that it was Peter who was in charge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top