What seemed to go against Peter’s primacy… he proclaims it!
About authority or ecclesiastical hierarchy, what does the Epistle to the Galatians teach? Does the Magna Carta of Christian freedom justify Luther’s rebellion, while condemning as a usurpation the dominating power of the bishops and the sovereign authority of the Roman Pontiff? The Pope, according to St. Paul, is a Vicar or an adversary of Jesus Christ?
This problem is more vital to Christianity than that of justification by faith; The opposite solutions that Catholicism and Protestantism give to it constitute the most radical difference that divides both. The importance of the problem will justify the effort we put into its study.
In a more general and comprehensive way we could study the problem, collecting everything that St. Paul teaches about the hierarchical authority of the Church in the Epistle to the Galatians. In this sense we could note that the entire Epistle is nothing other than an exercise or performance, at the same time as an defense, of the apostolic authority that St. Paul claims for himself. We would also point out the significant fact that St. Paul recognizes in the heads of the mother Church of Jerusalem an authority superior to his own. But, since our study is theological rather than exegetical, we will dispense with these secondary facts for now, to concentrate all our attention on the fundamental and central problem of the authority that St. Paul recognizes in the apostle St. Peter. This problem is truly a matter of life and death, for both Protestantism and Catholicism.
Protestants, both ancient and modern, have frequently appealed to the Epistle to the Galatians to make Catholics see that the Peter of the Epistle, the real and authentic Peter, weak, inconsistent, harshly rebuked by St. Paul, bears no resemblance to the sovereign head of the universal Church that they have fantasized about. On the other hand, many Catholic theologians, content with the decisive arguments that the Gospels provide in favor of the primacy of St. Peter, regarding the Epistle to the Galatians, have limited themselves to solving the difficulty objected to by the Protestants. The solution of the difficulty is sufficient, without a doubt, to maintain the Catholic thesis, supported by other more powerful arguments. But since the Epistle to the Galatians offers us a positive argument in favor of the primacy of St. Peter, why settle for a negative solution? If we can turn against our adversaries the same weapons that they shoot at us, why should we limit ourselves to defending ourselves against their shots? The Epistle to the Galatians invites us to take the offensive; It is therefore not fair to remain on the defensive. Leaving aside, therefore, all other considerations, we propose to demonstrate that in the same Epistle to the Galatians St. Paul gives us repeated testimonies of the supreme authority of St. Peter; testimonies, if you will, implicit, tacit, indirect, but no less effective for that reason, of the Catholic truth, which, if it can at all subsist without the support of these testimonies, is, without a doubt, more firmly corroborated with them.
There are three testimonies that St. Paul gives of the primacy of St. Peter: 1.18-19, the visit he made to him a few years after his conversion; 2.7-9, the apostolate of the circumcision, which at the council of Jerusalem he and all the faithful recognized in St. Peter; 2.11-15, the same speech that he gave against St. Peter shortly afterwards in Antioch. Let us examine each of these three testimonies in particular.
1. St. Paul’s visit to St. Peter
The Apostle writes: “After three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit (Gr. historésai) Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:18-19). Before examining the theological value of this testimony, a brief exegesis of this important passage is indispensable.
After his long retreat in Arabia, St. Paul, returning to Damascus, went up from there to Jerusalem to visit Cephas. That this Cephas is St. Peter, today no one doubts it, because it is evident. St. Paul speaks of Cephas as one of the apostles, and among the apostles there was no other Cephas but Simon Peter. Where it is worth noting this name of Cephas, which without further explanation Paul gives to Simon, son of Jonah. It is seen here that the Aramaic name of Cephas that Jesus Christ imposed on Simon, precisely when promising him supreme authority over the entire Church, was commonly used even in the Greek world as his proper name. If we no longer prefer to say that Paul emphatically uses the name Cephas, to explain the visit he made to him, as if he were to say: I visited Simon because he was the supreme head of the Church. The word visit, which we have used for lack of a more accurate word, does not adequately reproduce the force of the original verb “historésai”, which means to know by sight, to have an interview, to visit for attention and respect. By this St. Paul means that he wanted to meet St. Peter personally, pay him his respects and speak at length with him. And he stayed with him for fifteen days, staying, it seems, in his own house. This interest in visiting and speaking to Cephas contrasts singularly with Paul’s attitude towards the other apostles. Not only did he not try to visit them, but he did not even see them, except for Santiago. The indirect way of mentioning, as by way of preterition, the fact of having simply seen Santiago, indicates the occasional nature of this meeting and the secondary importance that St. Paul attributed to it. And this is that James, the bishop of Jerusalem and the brother of the Lord.
Let us note here two difficulties that St. Paul had: one, in the very act of going up to Jerusalem; another, in the mention of this fact, both very significant. On the one hand, he went up to Jerusalem from Damascus, from where he had to flee in danger of his life, as referred to in Acts 9:24-26 and in the second to the Corinthians (11:32-33). And when he went up to Jerusalem, St. Paul could well have foreseen the mistrust or prejudices that he would encounter among the faithful and the hostility of the Jews, as he also refers to in Acts (9:2630). In fact, after fifteen days he also had to flee Jerusalem to avoid falling into the hands of the Jews, who were trying to kill him. In such circumstances, going to Jerusalem just to visit St. Peter means that St. Paul has great desires and great interest in seeing him. On the other hand, this visit is mentioned by St. Paul not to confirm what he is saying, but despite it being a difficulty against his thesis. The Apostle tries to prove the divine origin of his Gospel, not received or learned from any man, but by revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1,12). For this reason he then adds that after his conversion he did not go up to Jerusalem to receive the teaching of those who were apostles before him. And yet, after three years, he went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter. He notes, it is true, that he was only with him for fifteen days, a time that was really insufficient to acquire the full knowledge of the Gospel that he possessed, but more than enough to highlight the interest and importance of the visit.
Let us now examine the significance of this visit. Paul, in difficult circumstances, goes to Jerusalem only for the purpose of seeing and speaking to Peter, exclusively to Peter. Peter was not the bishop of Jerusalem, nor did he stand out so much above the other apostles due to his personal gifts. What, then, could be the object of such a visit? Evidently this was not a visit of mere curiosity. The character of St. Paul and the very word that he uses to express the object of that visit exclude such a hypothesis. Nor did he turn to Peter so that he could instruct him in the doctrine of the Gospel. St. Paul himself explicitly excludes such a hypothesis. The true reason for the visit could not be other than Peter’s superiority over the other apostles and his eminent position in the Church. Bengel himself, a Protestant author, says of Peter, on the occasion of this visit: “Hunc ergo Paulus ceteris antetulit” (“Paul put Peter before the others”) (In Gal. 1,18). But before him, and better than him, Saint John Chrysostom, the most distinguished of the Eastern Fathers, fond of the great Apostle of the Gentiles like no one else, had written: “He went up (to Jerusalem) as one going to someone superior and older, and just to see Peter’s face he set out on the road… Not to learn something from him, but only to see him and honor him with his presence. It is not said “idéin”, that is, to “see” Peter, but “historésai”, that is, to “see him and know him”, in the same way as one speaks when someone goes to “see and know” the great cities he visits: that is why Paul judged that it was worth undertaking such a trip just to see that man; notice what great benevolence he showed towards Peter, since he undertook the pilgrimage for his sake and stopped with him for a time… It is clear that he honors Peter and loves him more than any of the others, since it is not said that go up to see the other apostles, but only Peter” (MG 61,631632).
Therefore, Paul’s visit is a splendid testimony of the superiority or supremacy of St. Peter, a supremacy that raises him above all the apostles: supremacy in Jerusalem, over the bishop of Jerusalem himself; supremacy that extends beyond the limits of Palestine over the faithful who live among the Gentiles; supremacy not founded on his own personal gifts. Such supremacy can only be one of dignity or authority. And since in the Gospel there is no supremacy of mere dignity or honor, contrary to the example and the most pressing prescriptions of the divine Master (Mt. 20,2428; Mc. 10,4145; Luke 22, 2427), we must conclude that such supremacy was of authority or jurisdiction. Now: the supreme authority of jurisdiction, exclusively belonging to St. Peter among all the apostles, is what we Catholics understand when we speak of the primacy of St. Peter. We can conclude with Saint John Chrysostom: “Peter was eminent among the apostles, mouth of the disciples and head of the group (Gr. “kai korufé tou xoroú”) Therefore Paul came to see him apart from the others” (In Io. hom.88 n.1: MG 59,478). For this reason, because Peter was singularly distinguished among the apostles, because he was the spokesperson and like the mouth of the disciples, because he was the summit, the head or the leader of the apostolic choir, Paul, leaving the other apostles, went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter.
2. St. Peter, “apostle of the circumcision”
To understand exactly the value and meaning of the apostolate of the circumcision, which St. Paul attributes to St. Peter, we must read the Apostle’s account of his journey to Jerusalem to submit his Gospel for the approval of the leaders of the mother Church. We shall gather only the concepts most important for our purpose:
“After fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem… I went up in response to a revelation. And I laid before them the Gospel that I preach among the Gentiles, and privately before those who were of repute, lest I should be running or had run in vain… But those who were of repute imposed nothing on me; 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 — for he who worked through Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision worked also through me for the Gentiles — and when James, Cephas and John, who were regarded as pillars, perceived the grace given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (Gal 2:1-9).
This passage, in which St. Paul seems to equate his apostolate with the apostolate of Peter, has frequently been presented as a difficulty against the existence of a primacy of sole and universal jurisdiction. However, carefully examined, far from being a difficulty against primacy, it is a positive argument in its favor. It will not be difficult to prove it.
But first let us briefly note that the apostolate spoken of here does not mean, directly at least, power of jurisdiction, but rather the ministry of preaching. And the distribution or demarcation of this apostolate between Peter and Paul is not exclusive and closed. As St. Paul frequently preached to the Jews, so St. Peter not rarely preached the Gospel to the Gentiles. With this ethnological or geographical demarcation only the ordinary field of the evangelical ministry assigned to the two princes of the apostles is indicated.
Prior to this declaration, all our reasoning is summarized in these statements: on the one hand, St. Peter, as the Apostle of the Circumcision, has supreme authority over the Church of the Jewish-Christians; On the other hand, St. Paul, the Apostle of the uncircumcision, and with him the entire Church of Christians coming from the Gentiles, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Apostle of the circumcision. Conclusion of these two statements combined is that St. Peter was the supreme head of the universal Church. Let’s proceed in parts.
St. Paul attributes the apostolate of the circumcision to St. Peter in a special and characteristic way. The apostolate in this case, as we have already warned, directly only means the ministry of evangelical preaching. It’s true. But we ask: why is such an apostolate attributed with speciality, and even with a certain exclusion, to Peter? Because, of course, it was not only Peter who preached the Gospel to the Jews. Therefore, if the exercise of this apostolate was not exclusive to St. Peter, the reason for attributing it especially and even exclusively to St. Peter cannot be other than that St. Peter had the supreme government or direction of this apostolate. There is even more. By what title did the supreme government of this apostolate correspond to St. Peter? Because St. Peter was not the bishop of the mother Church of Jerusalem, nor did he incarnate the Jewish tendency in his ideas and in his actions. These two titles evidently corresponded rather to James, the bishop of Jerusalem, who was considered by many to be the representative of the Jewish tendency. And yet, the apostolate of the circumcision does not correspond to James, but to St. Peter. The true title of this apostolate, distinct from and superior to the preceding ones, is none other than the supreme authority or jurisdiction that Peter had, with the exclusion of James, over the entire Church of the Jewish Christians. And such authority, because it was not local, was necessarily universal. And without this supreme authority it is not explained, nor even conceived, that St. Paul and the heads of the Church of Jerusalem themselves would have attributed to St. Peter the supreme direction of the apostolate of the circumcision. St. Peter, therefore, had primacy over the entire Jewish fraction of the Church.
And from this Jewish primacy the universal primacy necessarily follows. Before proving it by the testimony of St. Paul in the passage we studied, some observations of a more general nature will not be useless.
In no way could Jesus Christ have founded his Church without investing his envoys or representatives with true spiritual authority. But since the existence of the authority of the Church is positively confirmed to us, it would be absurd, contrary to the will of Jesus Christ and the testimony of Scripture, to suppose the coexistence of several independent authorities. The unity of the Church, which the divine Master so strongly recommended and which St. Paul instills so much, even in the same Epistle to the Galatians, imperatively demands that the principle of authority existing in the Church be reduced to unity. Therefore, if Peter has primacy over the Church of the Jewish Christians, it is necessary that he also have primacy over the Church of the faithful who come from the Gentiles. Otherwise, the unity of regime, so necessary in every well-organized society, would be lacking in the Church.
St. Paul also teaches, also in the Epistle to the Galatians, that Jews and Gentiles form, it is true, a single body in Christ Jesus, but not by equal titles. That the one and the other are not two homogeneous elements that combine equally, nor do the Gentiles absorb the Jews, but, on the contrary, it is the Jews who incorporate into themselves and how they absorb the Gentiles, to form the Israel of God, as the Apostle beautifully says (Gal. 6,16). The Judaizers, whom St. Paul combats in this Epistle, intended that the Gentiles, upon converting to Christianity, receive circumcision in order to become part of the descendants of Abraham. The Apostle responds to this by denying the need for circumcision, but granting and highlighting the need to become part of the descendants of Abraham, which the Gentiles achieve through faith and baptism in Christ Jesus. By virtue of this providential law, proclaimed so many times and in so many ways by St. Paul, it manifestly follows that the Gentiles, being associated with Israel, must also recognize the authority that Jesus Christ himself has established in the new theocracy, in spiritual Israel. Consequently, the primacy over the Church of the Jewish Christians entails in itself the primacy of the universal Church.
The facts agree with these general principles. In that same passage that we studied, St. Paul nobly declares his attitude towards St. Peter. The apostolate of the Gentiles and the apostolate of the circumcision are not two independent apostolates: they need to go together. And by agreeing, they do not enter with equal rights: the apostolate of the Gentiles asks for the recognition and approval of the apostolate of the circumcision.
That the Apostle of the Gentiles wants and needs to proceed in common agreement with the Apostle of the circumcision does not require demonstration or declaration; A simple reading of the passage is enough to convince you. We will note, however, two things. First, that St. Paul, if he sees the need to present his Gospel to the most distinguished figures of the Church of Jerusalem, does not do so because he doubts the truth of his Gospel: he knew very well, and he repeatedly assures us, that his Gospel had been received by him by revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1,12 and 16). And yet, it is necessary to expose it to the heads of the mother Church. Second, that with respect to the Judaizers, who were the ones who in fact hindered his preaching, not only did he not try to come to an agreement with them, but he vigorously opposed them and treated them harshly, calling them false brothers intruders, who had sneaked in to spy on our freedom, which we have in Christ Jesus, with the intention of enslaving us… To whom Paul adds, we did not give in for a moment, allowing ourselves to be subjugated, so that May the truth of the Gospel remain intact for you (Gal. 2:35). This different way of behaving towards the Judaizers and the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem is very significant: it is an evident sign that St. Paul, when reaching an agreement with the leaders, does not do so simply for the sake of peace, but out of conscience and to ensure the fruit of his evangelical preaching.
But there is more: the apostolate of the Gentiles and the apostolate of the circumcision, when they agree, do not enter into negotiations with equal rights. That it is not the heads of the Church of Jerusalem who go to Paul, but Paul to them. He exposes his Gospel to them; They find nothing to correct or add to this Gospel: they fully approve it. They, furthermore, recognize the divine mission of preaching to the Gentiles entrusted to St. Paul; They give him their right hands as a pledge of peace and communion; They, finally, ratify the agreement that Paul evangelized the Gentiles, and they evangelized the circumcision. These are not, therefore, negotiations between two equal parties, but rather steps taken by St. Paul in order to obtain the official recognition and approval of the Church of Jerusalem. And for what? Paul himself tells us: so as not to run or have run in vain, that is, so as not to compromise the fruit of his evangelical preaching. Let us note that it speaks of Paul’s preaching among the Gentiles. If the apostolate of the Gentiles could not be fruitfully exercised, not even by Paul, who had received the Gospel from God and the mission to preach it, without the approval of the apostolate of the circumcision, it is a sign that the faithful of the Gentiles recognized the supreme authority of the one who was considered par excellence the Apostle of the Circumcision.
Therefore, if on the one hand the apostolate of the Gentiles was subject to the authority and direction of the apostolate of the circumcision, and, on the other hand, the supreme authority and direction of this apostolate of the circumcision was in the hands of St. Peter, it clearly follows that St. Peter, as Apostle of the circumcision, was the supreme head of the entire Church.
3. St. Peter and St. Paul in Antioch
The so-called incident of Antioch, with the speech of St. Paul against St. Peter to which it gave rise, seems at first sight to be a serious difficulty against the primacy of St. Peter. It is not surprising, then, that Protestants have wanted to take advantage of this difficulty, which they have exaggerated, against the Catholic thesis of the primacy of St. Peter. However, upon closer inspection, that difficulty fades; Furthermore, it becomes a positive argument, even more effective than the previous ones, in favor of the Catholic thesis. Let’s prove it. But first it will be convenient to reproduce the passage in which St. Paul speaks of the Antioch incident. The Apostle says:
“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. And the other Jews acted hypocritically with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: if you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:11-14).
Before analyzing this passage it is worth noticing two things. Firstly, some ancients claimed that the Cephas of whom they speak was not St. Peter, or that St. Paul’s attitude was not one of serious opposition, but rather a kind of comedy agreed upon in advance with St. Peter himself. Without a doubt, these hypotheses would nip the difficulty in the bud. But we do not admit them, nor does anyone admit them today. We will assume, because it is evident, that St. Paul speaks with St. Peter, or, if you like, against St. Peter, and that he really speaks. Furthermore, we are now talking about the authority of St. Peter, not his infallibility. In no way can authority subsist without the prerogative of infallibility, as in fact the heads of states have it. Let us note, however, in passing that St. Paul does not attack the doctrine of St. Peter, but rather his practical procedure. Furthermore, from the moment he attacks St. Peter for inconsistency and simulation, for the same reason he bears positive testimony that St. Peter did not err in doctrine; If he erred it was precisely because his works did not conform to his doctrine: Tertullian’s sentence remains standing, that Peter’s error “conversationis Fuit vitium, non praedicationis” (“it was an error in his behavior, not in his preaching”, De praescript. 23: ML, 2,42). Or, as someone has modernly said, with a play on words suggested by St. Paul, Peter’s error was not one of orthodoxy, but of orthopedics[1].
This being said, let us now examine the fact of St. Peter and the attitude that St. Paul takes towards him.
We are in Antioch, whose Church was mostly composed of Gentiles. Shortly after the so-called council of Jerusalem, where the freedom of the Gentiles with respect to the Mosaic law had been defined, St. Peter arrived there, who, in accordance with what was resolved in Jerusalem, had not the slightest qualms about living and eating with the Gentiles, without adhering, therefore, to the prescriptions of the law regarding the distinction of delicacies. But behold, certain emissaries, real or supposed, from Santiago arrive from Jerusalem; and Peter, fearing those of the circumcision, withdrew from dealing with the Gentiles. The effect of this fearful withdrawal was disastrous. Everyone understood, without a doubt, that Peter was acting not out of conviction, but out of weakness or misunderstood condescension. His attitude was, as St. Paul says, a simulation, or, according to the force of the original word “hypocrisis”, a hypocrisy, a kind of comedy. And yet, this simulation dragged the other Jews and, what most amazed and hurt St. Paul, Barnabas himself, his companion in apostolate until then among the Gentiles, the one who in Jerusalem had worked so hard and so well to free the Gentiles from the yoke of the Mosaic law. This withdrawal of Peter, Barnabas and all the Jews, in addition to being extremely painful for the Gentiles, seriously endangered the truth of the Gospel and the peace and unity of the Church.
Terrible was, without a doubt, the conflict created by Peter’s simulation. But we ask ourselves: What overwhelming force did this simulation of Peter have to drag all the Jews and Barnabas himself after him? It is worth reflecting a little on this seemingly strange phenomenon, since its examination will give us one of the most effective and convincing proofs of the primacy of St. Peter, recognized and accepted by all, both Jews and Gentiles.
The Church of Antioch was composed mainly of Gentiles, rejoicing at the recent decree of the council of Jerusalem. Already, Peter’s presence in this Church of Gentiles is still significant. Among them, at first, Peter behaves like one of them, without worrying about the Mosaic prescriptions. And like Peter, the other Jews who were in Antioch. In such circumstances, Peter’s timid pretense, if Peter had simply been one of the apostles, would have aroused anger, protests, and complaints from the Gentiles, and nothing more. It was then Peter’s turn to withdraw, not from dealing with the Gentiles, but from the city. And yet, the opposite happens. The Gentiles are silent; the Jews imitate him; Barnabas denies himself. Furthermore, Peter had not uttered a single word to exhort others to follow his example; He did not threaten with anathemas; He did not defend his way of proceeding. Only his example, negative, timid, simulated, contradictory, reprehensible, was, as St. Paul says, a moral coercion, which forced everyone to Judaize. Others, before the council of Jerusalem, had done what Peter now does, and their example was despised. How now does Peter’s example drag everyone down? And Barnabas, Paul’s close friend until then, the one with such a strong and independent character, who soon after separated from Paul, the one who saw his apostolate among the Gentiles compromised, why did he give in so easily to Peter’s simulation? Did it not even occur to you to oppose the decree of the council? Peter’s indecisive example is more forceful than the decree of a council! There must have been something in Peter for his example alone to be so overwhelming… This something was not his personal gifts. Humanly, St. Paul far surpassed St. Peter. What gave such strength to Peter’s example was not, nor could it be, but his supreme and universal authority, recognized and obeyed by all. His example was not imitable, but the authority of the one who gave it weighed more than the decrees of an apostolic council.
Faced with the conflict created by Peter’s weakness or condescension, what attitude did Paul take? He says it himself. He saw that Peter, inconsistent with his principles, did not proceed in this case according to the truth of the Gospel, and was, therefore, guilty and reprehensible. For this reason he openly opposed him. This loyal and determined attitude responds to his wonderful speech, with which he proposed to solve the dangerous conflict. We are not interested now in the moral appreciation of St. Paul’s attitude, although we could note the moderation and respect with which he speaks to St. Peter. What interests us are the consequences that emerge from the attitude and words of the great Apostle of the Gentiles.
No one who knows St. Paul, even if it were only by having read the Epistle to the Galatians, will doubt the insight of his intelligence in taking charge of events and people, nor will they doubt the noble frankness and resolution in saying what he feels. In such circumstances, let us see what St. Paul says, and what he does not say, in his speech against the simulation of St. Peter. It could not be hidden from St. Paul that the reason for the effectiveness of St. Peter’s example was the authority that others gave to his person. In such a case, if this authority had not been legitimate and true, the first and even the only thing that St. Paul should have done was attack that authority. And yet, St. Paul does not attack the authority of St. Peter. And in such circumstances, not attacking it was recognizing it. Furthermore, St. Paul in his speech deals only with St. Peter; This is enough for your attempt. Everyone is missing, and Paul speaks only to Peter. He does not turn to others to refute Peter. The thing is that he did not consider it enough to solve the conflict to convince and straighten others if he did not convince and straighten Peter. Or, better yet, he undoubtedly thought that he would not be able to convince the others if he did not convince Peter himself beforehand. Without this the evil could not be uprooted. This is why he speaks only of Peter and only to Peter. Nor does it mention the council. If he had judged that the authority of the council was superior to that of Peter, the most effective recourse to disavow Peter’s conduct would have been to appeal to the council. And St. Paul does not appeal to the council, and apostolic council. What does he do then? He appeals from Peter to Peter: from Peter, who in a particular case does not act according to the truth of the Gospel, to Peter the apostle and supreme depositary of the truth of the Gospel; of Peter hesitant and inconsistent in acting to make Peter supreme head of the Church. Great daring was required and great daring was displayed by St. Paul when he openly opposed St. Peter; But this very boldness of his attitude and his words is for us the surest guarantee that St. Paul, by not attacking the authority of St. Peter, by appealing from Peter to Peter, recognized, like all the others, although in a contrary way, the supreme hierarchical authority of the Prince of the Apostles. We have, therefore, that the attitude and words of St. Paul, far from being a practical denial or a difficulty against the primacy of St. Peter, are its most splendid confirmation. Paul does not oppose to Peter either his own authority or the authority of the other apostles gathered in council: convinced that the conflict created by the supreme authority of Peter, only Peter himself, having come to his senses, could solve it with his supreme authority.
Conclusion
In the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul makes his own defense: he vigorously defends his authority as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, he defends the truth of his Gospel, and he defends the holiness of his moral doctrine. And in making his own defense, Paul makes the most brilliant defense of the primacy of St. Peter. Paul, moreover, shows himself nobly authoritative. But in the very act of giving the loftiest evidence of his own authority, of his apostolic freedom and frankness, he recognizes in St. Peter the supreme authority of the whole Church.
Author: J. M. Bover
Source: Apologetica.org
NOTES
[1] Paul’s letter says that Peter did not “walk uprightly”, in Greek “orthopodousin”.
Theology of St. Paul, BAC, Madrid, 1967, pp. 473-484
