Peter, Paul and Papal Infallibility

[MatthewCrossman]

This is an issue which came up on another thread. Investigating Catholicism as I am, I was wondering what forum users’ take on Paul rebuking Peter might be…and the implication, if any, on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

*’'But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

‘‘We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.’’ --GAL 2:11-16*

 

[catholic1seeks]

This is an issue which came up on another thread. Investigating Catholicism as I am, I was wondering what forum users’ take on Paul rebuking Peter might be…and the implication, if any, on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

*’'But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

‘‘We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.’’ --GAL 2:11-16*

Paul is correcting Peter’s actions. It has nothing to do with ex cathedra, Peter acting as universal visible leader to the Church, etc.

 

[promethius]

This is an issue which came up on another thread. Investigating Catholicism as I am, I was wondering what forum users’ take on Paul rebuking Peter might be…and the implication, if any, on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

''But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

‘‘We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.’’ --GAL 2:11-16

None of that has anything to do with papal infallibility. It was Peter’s ruling that the gentiles were saved just as the jews were, and Paul’s rebuke is because Peter wasn’t living up to his own (presumably infallible) teaching. If Peter’s ruling on the subject hadn’t been infallible, paul would not have made sure that peter was following it. This whole passage affirms that Paul believes Peter’s right authority in declaring the gentiles saved… it is an argument FOR magisterial teaching authority.

What it is an argument AGAINST is papal impeccability. That’s fine, the church doesn’t teach that anyway. Peter was a sinner and couldn’t follow his own church teaching perfectly? A-Okay, EVERY pope has been a sinner.

 

[MatthewCrossman]

None of that has anything to do with papal infallibility. It was Peter’s ruling that the gentiles were saved just as the jews were, and Paul’s rebuke is because Peter wasn’t living up to his own (presumably infallible) teaching. If Peter’s ruling on the subject hadn’t been infallible, paul would not have made sure that peter was following it. This whole passage affirms that Paul believes Peter’s right authority in declaring the gentiles saved… it is an argument FOR magisterial teaching authority.

What it is an argument AGAINST is papal impeccability. That’s fine, the church doesn’t teach that anyway. Peter was a sinner and couldn’t follow his own church teaching perfectly? A-Okay, EVERY pope has been a sinner.

Hey, thanks Promethius… I was thinking along those lines but wanted to be sure I was on the right track.

 

[FCEGM]

Hey, thanks Promethius… I was thinking along those lines but wanted to be sure I was on the right track.

Matthew, just to add a bit to what Promethius has said. . .

Paul is not questioning St. Peter’s authority here, nor is he correct his teaching. What we see here is a failure on Peter’s part to see the full picture as it applied to his ministry of leadership.

Consider: why does St. Paul boast about it? If St. Peter had no special authority, then there would be no reason for St. Paul to boast, seeing that, in Galatians 2, St. Paul is defending his right to be called an Apostle. Furthermore, Paul is employing a pun. If you read all of chapters one and two of Galatians you’ll notice that St. Paul does something rather strange: he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. The name “Kephas” (“Cephas”) is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” ("Rock) - the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8).

 

[MatthewCrossman]

Matthew, just to add a bit to what Promethius has said. . .

Paul is not questioning St. Peter’s authority here, nor is he correct his teaching. What we see here is a failure on Peter’s part to see the full picture as it applied to his ministry of leadership.

Consider: why does St. Paul boast about it? If St. Peter had no special authority, then there would be no reason for St. Paul to boast, seeing that, in Galatians 2, St. Paul is defending his right to be called an Apostle. Furthermore, Paul is employing a pun. If you read all of chapters one and two of Galatians you’ll notice that St. Paul does something rather strange: he switches between the names “Peter” and “Kephas”. The name “Kephas” (“Cephas”) is clearly the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha” ("Rock) - the name which Jesus actually used for St. Peter. However, in Greek “Kephas” means something all on its own. In Greek, “Kephas” means “Head”. And so, when St. Paul boasts of rebuking “Kephas” he is saying how he even stood up to “the Head” (of the Church) for the sake of the Gospel. This meaning would not be lost on Paul’s Greek-speaking audience. Look at the alternation between “Peter” and “Kephas”; whenever St. Paul refers to St. Peter’s position of leadership, it’s “Kephas” (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14), yet when he refers to St. Peter’s position as a fellow Apostle, he uses the name “Peter” (Gal. 2:7-8).

Hey thanks…very interesting.

 

[Ignatius33]

Hey thanks…very interesting.

Hi Matthew, in another thread, there was quite a good discussion of the Roman primacy (and, indirectly, papal infallibility) and the Catholic notion of the development of doctrine. You might want to check it out. The thread is in the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum under the title “Both Catholics and Evangelicals have lost their moorings.” The last update was June 14, so you’ll have to toggle back to get to it, but I think it may be worth your while as their is some in depth discussion of these topics.

By the way, I became Catholic last year (born and raised an Evangelical Protestant) and couldn’t be more at peace.

 

[MatthewCrossman]

Hi Matthew, in another thread, there was quite a good discussion of the Roman primacy (and, indirectly, papal infallibility) and the Catholic notion of the development of doctrine. You might want to check it out. The thread is in the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum under the title “Both Catholics and Evangelicals have lost their moorings.” The last update was June 14, so you’ll have to toggle back to get to it, but I think it may be worth your while as their is some in depth discussion of these topics.

By the way, I became Catholic last year (born and raised an Evangelical Protestant) and couldn’t be more at peace.

Thanks so much Ignatius…will head that way now.

Appreciate your thoughts…I too was born and raised protestant and I pray I will enjoy more of that peace as I continue down the road.