A protestant brother in Christ wanted to know how Catholics reconcile our beliefe that St. Peter was first Pope and our beliefe in Papal infallibility with St. Paul's rebuke to St. Peter at Antioch, which is recorded in St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. This is my reply:
Hey Jasawa and thanks for the question. :)
First, I don't think there is a clear
Catholic teaching on exactly when St. Peter became Pope, but he
clearly had that office by the time he presided at the selection of
St. Matthias. So yes, by the time the event St. Paul
describes in Galatians happened, St. Peter was Pope. And no, St, Paul
wasn't wrong; Galatians is Sacred Scripture. If Scripture says Peter
was wrong, then he was wrong. Actually, St. Paul's action is used by
St. Thomas Aquinas as the primary example that one may, sometimes,
correctly rebuke one's superiors.
So, does this contradict infallibility?
I don't think so. To understand why, we need to look at exactly what
infallibility is and also exactly what was St. Peter's error. Vatican
I spells out the criterion for an infallible Papal statement, the
criteria are actually quite strict. Wikipedia lists them here. One of the criteria is that the
Pope has to be speaking in his capacity as pastor of the whole Church. So St. Peter could,
theoretically, have been teaching heresy in the dining room at
Antioch without contradicting this teaching.
However, I don't think we have warrant
to conclude that St. Peter was teaching heresy at all. St. Paul
writes:
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he
stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used
to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw
back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of
those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews
joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas
was led astray.
From this passage, it seems to me
reasonably clear that St. Peter was, in fact, teaching the correct
doctrine but, as a result of the influence of certain men, he was
hypocritically failing to live in accordance with that doctrine. This
undoubtedly reflects poorly upon the great man, but has nothing to do
with infallibility at all.
I hope this helps.
No comments:
Post a Comment