[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Somebody ought to tell Paul that he was wrong in chastising the First pope about sacrificed meats.

I mean, really?
Who does Paul think he is to teach “Il Papa” about Jesus!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Which brings up lots of other questions.

Why was Peter questioned about going to the Gentile Cornelius by the Jerusalem church leaders?

Why did JAMES, not Peter, make the decision to allow Gentiles NOT to be circumcised?

Why did PETER fear those who came from James when he ate, then separated himself and the Jewish believers from the Gentile Christians?

Why did JAMES make the demand that Paul go to the Temple and offer Animal Sacrifices with other Jewish men who had a vow on their heads?

Why did not the Jerusalem Church led by JAMES entreat for PAUL in Prison?

Who died and made JAMES the ruler of the Hebrew Church?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Paul chastised Peter to his face because Peter's behavior was cowardly and wrong. He was succumbing to he desire to be popular and approved by the Judaizers.

Notice hat he was not wrong in dogma (which would be a formal definition of doctrine misleading of the faithful.) He was wrong in his personal behavior.

This isn't in contradiction to Peter being leader of the Apostolic band, None of our God-appointed leaders are "impeccable" (without sin.) That has never been claimed.

What is claimed, is that the Holy Church will be protected from the faulty behavior or erroneous opinions of popes: they will be unable to lead the whole Church into error by making an erroneous dogmatic pronouncement on faith and morals.

This protection which the CHURCH receives, in being protected from papal error, is called "infallibility." It is not a personal characteristic of the pope. It is a gift to the Church.

So now you know!