Successor to St. Peter's Universal Jurisdiction

I have one issue left before I’m convinced that the Catholic Church is the Only Church & that is the Authority of the Pope & whether it was Divinely Instituted or not?

The reason I’m not certain that is was is because St Peter himself was rebuked by St Paul when the issue arose of whether the gentile converts should observe the Torah or not.

It’s inconceivable to me that a regular bishop could rebuke the Pope on an issue of Faith & Morals & win over him. St Paul wasnt one of the 12, but his arguments won & the council decided on the matter. This to me points to the Orthodox understanding of Papal Authority; where Peter had a Primacy of Honor, but that the Office didnt have any authority over the bishops except for that authority which the other bishops “surrendered” from their own so it could instead be exercised by him “universally”.

Can you convince me that this is wrong, that the Orthodox is wrong on the authority of the Pope?

what do you mean “regular bishop”? The Pope is not some super-bishop. He’s a regular bishop. The “regular bishop” is not sub-bishop or lesser bishop. The Pope’s jurisdictional authority is authoritative when the need arises, it’s not a blanket authority to do whatever he wishes against the wishes of the local bishop.

In the case of Peter and Paul, any Apostle had the authority (in fact the duty) to correct Peter when Peter was acting incorrectly. This particular event neither confirms the Orthodox position nor denies the Catholic one.

When did an ordinary bishop go into dispute with the pope & won the argument in the Catholic Church other than with Paul correcting Peter?

The successor to St Peter isnt just an ordinary bishop because the office has a special grace by which the one who occupies it is protected from proclaiming erroneous doctrines - isnt that the whole point of papal infalliability?

On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy

In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before 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. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When 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?

In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.

However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:

Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:

Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?

This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:

Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.

However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.

In his subsequent letters (1Cor 8: 9-13, Romans 14:13), Paul backtracks and admits that one might avoid controversial behavior for the sake of the “weaker brethren.” Thus, he vindicates Peter’s actions in retrospect.

In short, Peter and Paul both had valid points. Paul was right in principle whereas Peter was right pastorally.

PETER IN GALATIANS
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9805chap.asp

Anti-Catholics attack the papacy by trying to undermine Peter’s role in the early Church. They often do this by turning to the first two chapters of Galatians, where Paul mentions Peter. They suggest that Paul disparaged and belittled Peter, something that would be inconceivable if Peter were the chief of all apostles. But a careful reading shows that Paul in no way belittled Peter. On the contrary! He used Peter as an example precisely because Peter was the chief apostle.

Paul had a personal relationship with the Galatians and had converted many of them himself (4:12-16). He felt it as a personal betrayal when some of his converts abandoned his gospel of justification through faith in Christ and began embracing a false gospel that said Christians must embrace the Mosaic Law to be saved. As a result, he wrote to them almost in a fury of holy anger.

He omitted his customary thanksgiving over his readers and began the body of the letter by saying, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ” (1:6). Later, he refers to the Galatians as “mindless” (3:1). This contrasted the tone he took in Romans. The same heresy appeared in the capital of the Empire, but, since Paul did not have the same kind of relationship with the Romans, whom he had not yet visited (Rom. 1:8-15), he took a winsome tone instead.

Particularly stinging to Paul was the charge, by some in Galatia, that his gospel of justification by faith in Christ was a watered-down version of the “true gospel,” which supposedly also required the observance of the Mosaic Law. Paul had watered down his gospel, the charge went, to please men by not making strong demands of them. His was a “human” gospel. Paul responded to this charge by pronouncing an anathema on anyone who preached a gospel different from his, and, after this fiery condemnation, he sarcastically added, “Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men?” (1:10).

He then turned to a defense of his gospel, to show that it was not of human origin (1:11) but was revealed to him by God (1:12). Paul pointed out that he, of all people, was zealous for the Mosaic Law before his conversion to Christianity (1:13-14) and declared that, when Christ appeared to him (Acts 9), he did not confer with other men about the content of the gospel (1:15-16). He did not even visit with the other apostles (1:17).

Only after three years did Paul go up to Jerusalem and spend a fortnight with Peter (1:18-24). While he was there he happened to see James the Just, but nobody else (1:19). Paul even assured his readers that he was not lying about this (1:20), for they might have thought, “How could one go to Jerusalem and not try to meet as many apostles as one could?” But Paul wasn’t interested in meeting the others, only Peter, whom he went to see. Why? Because Peter was the one to see. He was the head apostle, and so Paul wanted to confer with him.

Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul made another visit, in which he did see the other apostles (2:1-10). He stressed that he did not curry the favor of others, saying that the reputations of the most important apostles did not matter to him, for God judges impartially (2:6a). But Paul did have regard for the teaching of the Jerusalem apostles, who also had been instructed by Christ. His gospel had to agree with theirs, so he explained it to them privately, “lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain” (2:2). He thus submitted his gospel to the Jerusalem apostles.

The fact that God judges impartiality does not do away with offices in the Church; it means that God will judge the officeholders impartially. Paul singled out Peter as one who had a special office, above James and John, as the one God entrusted with leading the mission to the Jews (2:7-8). This made Peter a perfect test case to show the transcendent importance of the gospel. It is more important than any person, so Paul used Peter, the most important person in the early Church, to show this.

He recounted an incident in which Peter visited the Church in Antioch (2:11-17). Peter had been the one who first admitted Gentiles to the Church (Acts 10), though doing so subjected him to criticism (Acts 11). When Peter visited Antioch, he kept his usual practice of holding table fellowship with Gentile Christians, but drew back when some Jewish Christians arrived (2:12). Paul rebuked Peter since this action could be misunderstood as implying that Jews should not sit at table with Gentiles and that the Mosaic Law is binding (2:14-16). (We should also note that Paul himself later did something similar, and it led to his arrest [Acts 21:17-33]).

Peter knew that keeping the Mosaic Law was not necessary, and Paul reminded him of this fact (2:15-16). Peter’s understanding of the gospel was correct. The problem was with his behavior, not his teaching (making this totally irrelevant to the issue of papal infallibility, especially since Peter was not trying to define solemnly a dogma of the faith). Nor did Paul’s rebuke impugn Peter’s authority. If a pope’s behavior causes scandal, he should be rebuked by someone. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the pope in her day, and she is regarded as a doctor of the Church. In fact, it is precisely because Peter is so important-because he is the chief apostle-that he provides such a useful illustration for Paul’s exposition of the gospel’s supreme importance.

Peter and Paul were both Apostles.

Our Pope has many bishops to advise and correct him, and a priest/confessor. He can also be corrected by laypeople or religious (priests and nuns). Some nuns have written letters to Popes to get them back on track. The Pope is not inerrant - he can make mistakes.

Yes, that is the whole point of infallibility, but making mistakes in daily life does not have anything to do with “proclaiming erroneous doctrines”. On the contrary, it was Peters own teaching that he was not acting in accordance with at the time.

Randy posted all the good stuff.:thumbsup:

It’s not a bishop who may rebuke a pope in order to keep his teaching free from error; its the Holy Spirit. The means are incidental.

When the apostles met in Jerusalem this was the first ecomenical council, that means the first world wide conference/meeting of bishops.

In an ecomenical council, one of its intentions is to settle questions on the faith. It is because these questions pop up from time to time within the church. Such as was Christ truely man?

In the case of this first council it was a question of how to deal with practices of the religious traditions of the Jews within the faith. Should they be kept or not.

So this was the spirit in which they met…to settle how to deal with Jewish religious practises … to keep or reject. And in these councils, the pope is a part of this council who brings his ideas with him just as the other bishops bring their ideas with them. And the principle of it all is to discuss and then to determine what is the right or good thing to do.

So the council of Jerusalem was a settling machine and not a predetermined box for everyone … to view their ideas and opinions. And as such they were free to express themselves so that they could all agree on what to do.
Including the pope. And the give and take is how they did this, and still do it today.

The event in Galations 2, with Paul rebuking Peter, already disproves your statement above. Paul did win over Peter to mend his ways.

And two more examples here:

Cardinal Contarini:

newadvent.org/cathen/04323c.htm

He used his influence with the pope to suppress abuses in the papal government and to secure virtuous men for the Sacred College. Contarini was the president of a commission appointed by the pope in 1536 to submit plans for a reform of evils in the Roman Curia or in other parts of the Church. It was largely due to him that, early in 1537, the commission could present its programme, the “Consilium de emendandâ ecclesiâ”. He advised the pope not to abuse the great jurisdiction placed in his hands; and encouraged his friends among the bishops to take appropriate measures for discipline and good order in their dioceses, setting an example in his own Diocese of Cividale di Belluno, to which he was appointed in October, 1536.

And Catherine of Siena:
ewtn.com/library/MARY/CATSIENA.HTM

Catherine wore herself out trying to heal this terrible breach in Christian unity and to obtain for Urban the obedience due to the legitimate head. Letter after letter was dispatched to the princes and leaders of Europe. To Urban himself she wrote to warn him to control his harsh and arrogant temper. This was the second pope she had counseled, chided, even commanded. Far from resenting reproof, Urban summoned her to Rome that he might profit by her advice. Reluctantly she left Siena to live in the Holy City. She had achieved a remarkable position for a woman of her time. On various occasions at Siena, Avignon, and Genoa, learned theologians had questioned her and had been humbled by the wisdom of her replies.

That’s a myth. Paul never rebuked Peter. The Greek text says Paul rebuked another disciple named Cephas, not the Apostle Peter:
Galatians 2: 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.
Notice that Paul shifts from talking about “Peter” to talking about “Cephas” in the same context, giving no indication they are the same person going by two different names. Around AD175, the Early Church Father Clement of Alexandria even confirms this, as recorded in Eusebius’ Church History:
[Clement of Alexandria] says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.” ( 1.12.2Church History)
The “seventy” refers to the seventy disciples who worked underneath the 12 Apostles.

We know that Peter had trouble being courageous in the Gospels, but after Pentecost we see a radically changed man. He was not afraid to be persecuted and confront the Jews, as he did throughout Acts, never once caving into error. So it’s inconceivable that Peter somehow got scared are caved in to Judaizing about 15-20 years after Pentecost because he had been standing up to Jewish persecution all that time. In fact, Peter’s testimony at the Council would be garbage if he was guilty of letting error spread. Lastly, there is no indication Peter was ever in Antioch at that time.

Interesting, I’ve never seen this argument before!

However, even if he were talking about Peter, it wouldn’t affect Catholic dogma on this point. Popes can sin and act imprudently or scandalously and it wouldn’t be wrong for a brother bishop to rebuke the Pope in those cases.

Jesus gives the keys to Peter alone, says He will build the Church on Peter, and tells Peter to strengthen his brothers (the other Apostles). He also commands Peter individually to feed, tend and feed His sheep.

The reason I’m not certain that is was is because St Peter himself was rebuked by St Paul when the issue arose of whether the gentile converts should observe the Torah or not.

Rebuking someone for not behaving as they ought is not a sign of a lack of authority. It’s actually very healthy that those in power are held to their own teachings. Paul is calling Peter out for not living up to what Peter had already taught. That doesn’t mean Peter lost his authority.

It’s inconceivable to me that a regular bishop could rebuke the Pope on an issue of Faith & Morals & win over him.

Paul called Peter out for not living up to what Peter had already declared on faith and morals. Paul wasn’t challenging Peter’s teaching on faith and morals.

St Paul wasnt one of the 12, but his arguments won & the council decided on the matter.

The fact that Paul took the issue to the council points to an authority that Paul recognized that he didn’t have. And the issue was decided when Peter spoke, and everyone became silent. The issue was final once Peter spoke.

This to me points to the Orthodox understanding of Papal Authority; where Peter had a Primacy of Honor, but that the Office didnt have any authority over the bishops except for that authority which the other bishops “surrendered” from their own so it could instead be exercised by him “universally”.

And yet, can you point to one example where the Orthodox have ever convened a council since they split from Rome? Or can you show anywhere that an Orthodox bishop has ceded authority to the Pope since that time? If that’s there story, then show me where they live up to it.

Hopefully soon the 1000 year schism will be finally healed and the Church will be united again.

Can you convince me that this is wrong, that the Orthodox is wrong on the authority of the Pope?

We can only give you the arguments and evidence. It’s up to you to decide whether to accept it or not.

Jerome was talking to Augustine about this episode. Here is Jerome’s response

(all emphasis mine)

[LIST=1]
*]Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him. Now look at what Paul did
]In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
]Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
[/LIST]
Catch that? Paul rebukes Peter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter
[FONT=Comic Sans MS] in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry.
. *Because *[/FONT]*Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. *[1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul[FONT=Comic Sans MS] for it. Then [/FONT]Paul embraces this behavior for himself…

St Jerome points out.

“O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter
for hypocrasybecause he withdrew himself from the
Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from
James, why are you, not withstanding your own
doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a
Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”

Jerome continues, “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for youaccording to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]

I tried to highlight and compress ( albeit a poor job on my part) what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly starting with ch’s 3…. of his letter. Here is Jerome’s full letter for context. newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

This Orthodox argument you bring up is the same argument that Jesus settled among the apostles in the upper room. The apostles were in an argument over who is the greatest among THEM. IOW Primacy / supremacy / greatest of one of **THEM.
Gee, imagine that? Someone arguing over primacy :rolleyes:
**
#
153

Get ready to join the Catholic Church :slight_smile:

Why do you say that? Is it because “Cephas” is mentioned between “James” and “John”? If the “James” and “John” mentioned here are Apostles, then I can see why it would make sense to see “Cephas” as an Apostle as well. But this is not certain, and here’s why I say that.

[LIST=1]
*]Luke says that a “John-Mark” helped out Paul a lot, and the “James” here could be “James the Lord’s Brother” (Gal 1:19) a cousin of Jesus who was not necessarily the Apostle James son of Alphaeus.
*]When Paul says these men “seemed to be pillars,” this is a funny thing to say about Apostles. It would be like looking at a group of bishops and saying “they seem to be leaders,” even though that is a given. Rather, it makes more sense (in my opinion) that “seemed to be pillars” means these men were highly respected in the community despite not being apostles.

In fact, in verse 6 Paul says: “And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.” Does it make sense that Paul would say “who cares what they were” about the Apostles? Did Paul really not care who the Apostles were? The ‘safer’ interpretation here is that the “those who seemed influential” simply SEEMED TO BE and this wasn’t bad in itself, it just meant they weren’t official leaders, just highly influential.

*]Paul says as a result of them recognizing that God entrusted Paul to the Gentiles and Peter was entrusted to the Jews, they THEN decided that it would be good for Paul to go to the Gentiles and “Peter” to the Jews. That sounds redundant to me: Why would they agree to divide up the evangelization efforts after already realizing the efforts were already divided up by God? It makes more sense to read it as saying James, Cephas, John, Barnabas, and Paul were non-Apostles sent to Antioch, and in Antioch the team broke into two teams (while the 12 Apostles were in Jerusalem or off somewhere else).
[/LIST]
In the end, it’s really not a Papacy/Infallibility issue, but whether it makes sense that the Apostle Peter was scared of some Jewish ‘evangelists’ who came into town. Why did Peter “fear” the circumcision party? Who were these people that Peter couldn’t stand up to? Peter stood up to the Jews throughout Acts, and Peter stood up to the Jewish Christians asking about circumcision in Acts 10 (before Paul came around) when Peter ushered in the Gentiles. So why would Peter the chief leader fear a group of laymen?

Do you have some support that there was another man named Cephas who was recognized as a pillar in the early Church? I’ve never come across one. There may have been a lot of Mary’s, James’, and John’s in Scripture, but I know of only one “Cephas”.

*]When Paul says these men “seemed to be pillars,” this is a funny thing to say about Apostles. It would be like looking at a group of bishops and saying “they seem to be leaders,” even though that is a given. Rather, it makes more sense (in my opinion) that “seemed to be pillars” means these men were highly respected in the community despite not being apostles.

The word translated above as “seemed” is also translated as “recognized as”, “regarded as”, “reputed”… The same word is used in Galatians 2:2 – “…and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute)…”

Your contrary view on the identity of “Cephas” is not new. If you haven’t checked out the Haydock commentary on this section of Galatians, it’s worth reading – especially the commentary on verse 11.
haydock1859.tripod.com/id194.html

Saint Cyril of Alexandria (AD200) explicitly says the “Cephas” in Galatians 2 was one of the Seventy Disciples and not the Apostle Peter. This testimony was preserved in Eusebius’ popular work History of the Church. So it’s not an obscure idea.

Also, in Scripture we see “Cephas” mentioned but he seems to rank below that of an Apostle given the texts his name appears in:
[LIST]
*]1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22 list the order of Paul, then Apollos, then Cephas.
[/LIST]

[LIST]
*]1 Corinthians 9:5 says “the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas.”
[/LIST]

[LIST]
*]1 Corinthians 15:5 says Jesus “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”
[/LIST]
The idea of putting Cephas after Apollos and ‘outside’ the number of the twelve suggests Cephas was a high ranking Christian who helped Paul and Apollos, but who was also not Peter.

Combine this with the fact that “Cephas” appears only 7 times in the New Testament while “Peter” appears 160 times. The name “Peter” is what Peter went by almost all the time, and it was the Greek word for “Rock” which the Gentile world would understand. The only time Peter is explicitly linted to Cephas is in John 1:42, but John immediately follows that up with “which means Peter”.

The word translated above as “seemed” is also translated as “recognized as”, “regarded as”, “reputed”… The same word is used in Galatians 2:2 – “…and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute)…”

I agree, I’m just saying that when Paul uses that word he is not using it in a way we would expect to see Apostles spoken of. The Apostles didn’t have to be “regarded as” having a reputation, because they intrinsically held the highest office of authority. The people Paul is talking about more likely were influential people in Church, but not so influential that Paul was bound to their opinions, which is why Paul speaks of them with a tone of indifference (“I don’t care if they were people of repute”,v6, is not how Paul would speak of an Apostle).

Your contrary view on the identity of “Cephas” is not new. If you haven’t checked out the Haydock commentary on this section of Galatians, it’s worth reading – especially the commentary on verse 11.
haydock1859.tripod.com/id194.html

That was actually pretty good to read. I didn’t realize there was such a consensus among the Doctors of the Church. Even if it was Peter, it is baffling that he would cave into Judaizing after having stood up boldly against Judaizing in the past. So, if it was Peter, whatever happened at that incident, it wasn’t that severe of a fault.

“Fear of human respect” can be a very strong temptation/influence in human choices. It probably played a part in Peter’s denial of Our Lord even after spending 3 years in His company - and after proclaiming he would die before He would deny Our Lord. (Mt. 26:35 “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you.”) .

I understand that line of thinking, but Peter prior to Pentecost was not the same as Peter after Pentecost. After Pentecost, Peter never backed down from anything.
Acts 11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, 3 “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4 But Peter began and explained it to them in order: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision…the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’…15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
Paul already withstood Judaizer confrontation and didn’t back down. He didn’t care about human respect here.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.