Petrine fallibility on doctrine?

It is often argued that the incident in Antioch mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Galatians "proves" that the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is incorrect.

"And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, 'If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews ?' " Galatians 2:11-14 NAB

Rob correctly points out that a distinction is made between infallibility and impeccability. Infallibility is defined as a divine charism (a gift of grace from God) which protects the pope from teaching error when formally making a declaration on an issue of faith and morals on an issue applicable to the entire Church. This is quite different from the myth that popes are supposed to be "perfect" (impeccable). Popes are still human beings and are subject to the same shortcomings as anyone else; in fact, the current pope John Paul II goes to confession once a week! In other words, there have been many instances where popes have not behaved impeccably; however, this does not detract from the charism of infallibility when making a formal declaration on faith or morals. This charism is said to be in effect when the pope speaks ex cathedra, as defined by the Vatican Council, Session IV:

: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (Const de Ecclesiā Christi, c. iv)

Although Rob seems to recognize this distinction, the remainder of his article is spent trying to suggest that Peter's actions at Antioch WERE in fact an ex cathedra formal declaration on faith and morals. This simply is not true.

As usual, it is important to consider the entire context - in this case we need to recall scriptural support for Peter's authority in the New Testament: The Bible is quite clear that Peter was first among the Apostles. Jesus changed his name and gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven (see below). The writer of Matthew's Gospel even calls Peter "the first" in Mt 10:2. The Greek word is "protos" does not necessarily mean first chronologically; for example, we know that Andrew was chronologically the first Apostle (Jn 1:41), so the reference to Peter as "the first" clearly implies a position of importance among them. Peter alone is supernaturally enabled by Christ to walk on water (Mt 15), and when his faith wavers, Jesus does not allow him to sink. Peter leads the Apostles in fishing (Jn 23:2-11), and, Jesus preaches from Peter's boat with the resultant miraculous catch of fish (Lk 5:1-11), making Peter and others "fishers of men" (Mt 4:19). Immediately after receiving the Keys to the kingdom, the tax collectors immediately go to Peter to ask the question about paying taxes, and it is Peter who miraculously pays the tax from the fish's mouth, empowered again by Jesus (Mt 17:24-27) Invariably, Peter is always listed first when the Apostles are listed (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13), while Judas is listed last. Jesus specifically prays that Peter's faith may not fail (quote) and He instructed Peter to "feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17) and to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32) Peter performs the first miracle after Christ's death and resurrection (Acts 3:6-12) and utters the first anathema (Acts 5:2-11). He was even the first after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40). Peter is clearly regarded as leader by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13), other people (Acts 2:37-41, 5:15), as well as the Apostles and presbyters and the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). He was the first to speak in the Upper Room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22) and after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). Peter is the first one sent for, and to enter, the empty tomb of Jesus (Lk 24:12). He was the one to initiate a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22), and is identified by one of God's angels as leader and representative of the Apostles (Lk 16:7). Peter took the initiative in replacing the 12 apostle Judas with Matthias (Acts 1:22) He preached the first sermon (Acts 2:14-26). He brought the first Christian community into being (Acts 2:41), and he already was acting as the spokesman for the 12 (Acts 3:12, 4:8). He alone was the one who decided to allow the Gentiles directly into the Christian community against all opposition (Acts 10:9-48) He was the one who settled the dispute at th council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11).

More importantly, note Paul made a point of telling the Galatians that he had conferred with Peter for fifteen days in Jerusalem in the chapter preceeding Gal 2:11-14. Clearly, Paul acknowledged Peter's authority, so it must have really upset him to see Peter acting in a way he thought was hypocritical. After all, Peter was the one who had received the revelation from God to allow Gentiles in to the church in the first place, and it was Peter who made the infallible decision not to hold the Gentile converts to the Judaizer's requirements in Acts 15. These facts aside, there are several problems with Rob's analysis:

1) Rob asserts that "Paul brings the charge that Peter was compelling Gentiles to live like Jews". This is not so. Paul's statement begins with "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews ?'" This is a rhetorical question, i.e., one asked solely to produce an effect, not expect an answer. In other words, Paul was not expecting Peter to provide an explanation as to why he was "compelling" the Gentiles to live like Jews, he was making a point that he thought Peter was acting hypocritically by not eating dinner with the Gentiles. Furthermore, the passage gives no proof that the Gentiles were affected at all If anything, it was the Jews who became involved, including Barnabas.

2) Rob discusses the fact that the word "compel" (Greek anagkazeis) means "to to compel, urge, force, constrain (Strong's 315)" and asserts that "It was not simply withdrawing from fellowship but also actively compelling the Gentiles to do the same". Is this really true? Exactly where in the passage does Peter "force" the Gentiles to do anything, much less live like Jews, including be circumcised? At absolutely no point does Peter say anything about living like Jews or being circumcised. Peter was merely trying to be sensitive to the fact that Jewish converts to the faith might still have difficulty with the idea of associating with Gentiles (recall that Jews had always considered Gentiles as "dogs" or "swine"), so in order to avoid offending them, he "drew back and separated himself" - that is all. This argument is even less than an argument from silence, it is an argument from nonexistence! :-)

3) Rob writes, "Hence, if Peter was teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised in addition to their faith in Christ, he was adding to the Gospel, therefore he was a false teacher." Unfortunately for this position, Peter never taught that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised. Recall the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where the Judaizers wanted to hold the Gentiles to the Mosaic Law:

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." (Acts 15:5)

This was the entire purpose for the council, over which Peter presided. After there was much debate, Peter stood up, the crowd fell silent in respect to his authority, and he announced that the Gentiles did NOT need to be held to these Laws (including circumcision):

And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put NO DIFFERENCE between us and them, purifying their hearts by FAITH. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:9-11)

In other words, Peter clearly, and infallibly, made a declaration that the Gentiles were purified by faith, not by circumcision, not by kosher laws, or not by any other Judaizer position. In the only occurrence where Peter addresses circumcision, he declares that it is not necessary for the Gentiles. In essence, the difference between Acts 15 versus Galatians 2:11-14 is the difference between a true ex cathedra statement on faith and morals as opposed to the fact that Peter chose to sit with one group instead of another. Consider the very definition of "hypocrisy", which means to say one thing but do something differently. In other words, Peter taught against the Judaizers but acted in a way contrary to it - more specifically, Peter's teachings were still correct, but his behavior may not have been.

4) Finally, Rob writes:

"Peter had been actively teaching false doctrine. Therefore he proved he was not infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals. Which creates a contradiction in the RCC teaching. By definition an infallible teaching cannot be wrong. But Peter was clearly teaching a wrong doctrine. Therefore he was not infallible, therefore the RCC claim is erroneous and self-stultifying."

The accusation of hypocrisy on creates a very large problem for Protestants who point to Galatians 2:11-14, because they may not realize that Paul himself acted in a similar way on more than one occasion; for example, in Acts 18:18 Paul cuts his hair in accordance with the Nazirite vow. In Acts 21:18-26, Paul had men's heads shaved, and then purified himself with them and made an offering in the temple, all in accordance with the Old Covenant ceremonial laws. Furthermore, in Acts 16:1-3 Paul had Timothy circumcised "on account of the Jews":

"Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they all knew that his father was a Greek"

Here we see a plain example of Paul acting in a way not to offend the Jews "who knew that Timothy's father was a Greek", so he had Timothy circumcised. So, if Peter was acting hypocritically by not eating with the Gentiles, how much more hypocritical does that make Paul? Peter never actively preached circumcision for the Gentiles; if anything, he decided against it in Acts 15. On the other hand, Paul actually has Timothy circumcised, AND Paul criticizes Peter for not eating with the Gentiles! In an even more obvious example:

"The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present. He greeted them, then proceeded to tell them in detail what God had accomplished among the Gentiles through his ministry. They praised God when they heard it but said to him, "Brother, you see how many thousands of believers there are from among the Jews, and they are all zealous observers of the law. They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses and that you are telling them not to circumcise their children or to observe their customary practices. What is to be done? They will surely hear that you have arrived. So do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. Take these men and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses that they may have their heads shaved. In this way everyone will know that there is nothing to the reports they have been given about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law… So Paul took the men, and on the next day after purifying himself together with them entered the temple to give notice of the day when the purification would be completed and the offering made for each of them." (Acts 21:18-26)

Would Rob be so bold to include Paul and James and the presbyters in the hypocrisy he accuses Peter of? Paul, who had the frequent misfortune of people trying to kill him for his preaching, was trying to avoid offending the Jews, just like Peter tried to do at Antioch in Galatians 2:11-14. So, in fear of the Jews, both Peter and Paul pretended to observe the precepts of the Law, as the great Scripture scholar Jerome writes:

"You say in your letter: ‘You do not require me to teach you in what sense the apostle says, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;" ’ and other such things in the same passage, which are to be ascribed to the compassion of pitying love, not to the artifices of intentional deceit. For he that ministers to the sick becomes as if he were sick himself, not indeed falsely pretending to be under the fever, but considering with the mind of one truly sympathizing what he would wish done for himself if he were in the sick man's place. Paul was indeed a Jew; and when he had become a Christian, he had not abandoned those Jewish sacraments which that people had received in the right way, and for a certain appointed time. Therefore, even when he was an apostle of Christ, he took part in observing these, but with this view, that he might show that they were in no wise hurtful to those who, even after they had believed in Christ, desired to retain the ceremonies which by the law they had learned from their fathers; provided only that they did not build on these their hope of salvation, since the salvation which was foreshadowed in these has now been brought in by the Lord Jesus." ....…for I say that both Peter and Paul, through fear of the believing Jews, practiced, or rather pretended to practice, the precepts of the Jewish law; whereas you maintain that they did this out of pity, ‘not with the subtlety of a deceiver, but with the sympathy of a compassionate deliverer.’ But by both this is equally admitted, that (whether from fear or from pity) they pretended to be what they were not. As to your argument against our view, that he ought to have become to the Gentiles a Gentile, if to the Jews he became a Jew, this favors our opinion rather than yours: for as he did not actually become a Jew, so he did not actually become a heathen; and as he did not actually become a heathen, so he did not actually become a Jew. His conformity to the Gentiles consisted in this, that he received as Christians the uncircumcised who believed in Christ, and left them free to use without scruple meats which the Jewish law prohibited; but not, as you suppose, in taking part in their worship of idols. For ‘in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but the keeping of the commandments of God.’ " (Letter 112, 4:12, 17)

SUMMARY

1) Peter was not making an ex cathedra formal declaration on faith and morals; therefore, the divine charism of papal infallibility is not disproved by Galatians 2:11-13

2) Peter was only trying to be sensitive to the Jews and wanted to avoid a potential scandal by not eating with the Gentiles.

3) Paul is guilty of the very same things that Peter did in Galatians 2:11-13, so anyone who points to this passage as a proof-text against the papacy is in the the untenable position of explaining why Paul behaved the same way.

peace be with you