Replies

But this does not contradict the Lord's passing of his authority along to Peter, because by calling Peter rock, the Lord was doing precisely that -- endowing Peter with His authority to teach the Word on the earth after his ascension into heaven -- in order to found the Church that will represent Him on earth.

Again, sorry, but Simon was alREADY known as PETER before Christ said that to him.

You DID see those verses; right?

Very solid Biblical evidence. Put these together with the passages from the Early Church Fathers, and it is an air tight case for Petrine Primacy.

O... K...

Galatians 2:11-14
11. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12. 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.
14. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Again, sorry, but Simon was alREADY known as PETER before Christ said that to him.

You DID see those verses; right?

Yes, I saw them. But, Elsie, this is a red herring argument. It's really a diversionary tactic that does not refute the Catholic interpretation of this passage.

So what if Simon was called Peter before this passage? That doesn't change anything. Peter still means "rock" and Christ plays off this double entrendre in Peter's name in order to confer authority to Him. This becomes evident in the subsequent passage, where he passes the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. This to me seems very clear, plain and obvious in the Scripture.

Then, you go on to cite Galatians:

Galatians 2:11-14
11. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Yes, this is a wonderful passage, because it helps to illustrate what the Church really means by the infallibility of Peter and his successors. That you quote this passage suggests to me that you do not understand the true meaning of the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.

Infallibility means exemption from actual and possible error in matters of major Church doctrine, Truths with a Capital "T" in the Sacred Tradition. It does not require holiness of life, much less does it imply impeccability in its organs. As New Advent notes, "Sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly. Also, that validity of the Divine guarantee is independnet of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached."

So, yes, of course Peter can be lacking in character, and he can make human mistakes. He is human after all! And so are the Popes and all the Bishops of the Church. Infallibility does not mean that the members of the Church are perfect creatures. Far from it!

No, rather, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching.

Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

Getting back to the passage you cite of Peter in Antioch: Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

You must acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—you cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general. Let's be consistent now.