The Galatians 2 Strawman Argument against Papal Infallibility

You wrote on Jul 6, 2007 at 6:44 AM.
You replied to Ambrosial's post on Jun 14, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Ambrosial,

Well, well, well. Time for a not-so-little rebuttal.

"Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error."

Eh. A little too broad for my tastes. He has to be defining a matter for the entire Church. Personal opinions don't count, sins don't count. Let's not resort to a strawman fallacy.

"Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible, only the Word of God is regarded as without error."

Funny how Church Tradition tells you what the Word of God is even composed of.

"If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

If you'd like, I can go into the biblical typology for Matthew 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:20-22. Jesus, King of the New Israel, selected Peter as His Prime Minister, just like Eliakim was the "Master of the Palace" under King Hezekiah. Don't just assume that the Bible doesn't make Peter the Pope without backing it up, because people like me know better.

Peter wasn't "deceived" by Judaizers. He acted hypocritically because he was afraid of them.

I'll just copy and paste another post I made on this topic that demolishes this often used Protestant strawman fallacy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Council of Jerusalem probably occured around 49 AD - before the episode between Peter and Paul at Antioch, and before the writing of Galatians.

In Acts 10, God sent a vision - to whom? Peter. The animals, the whole "what God has made clean, you are not to call unclean" business.

The episode in the house of Cornelius was a sign that Gentiles were to be included in the Christian Church. It was a confirmation of Peter's vision, and it made him realize the importance of his revelation. Peter defended the inclusion of the Gentiles in Chapter 11.

At the later Council of Jerusalem, Acts 15, the Judaizers were debating with Paul and Barnabas over the inclusion of the Jews.

What ended the debate?

Acts 15:7, "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through MY MOUTH the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe."

Here Peter appeals to his earlier revelation, and the fact that it was through him, through his mouth, that the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe.

Acts 15:8-10, "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?"

So, by this point Peter definitely is not insisting that following the Jewish law is an absolute necessity. It is through PETER that the Church comes to reject that notion.

Acts 15:11, "On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."

Salvation through grace, for both Jews and Gentiles. Before Acts 10, Peter - and most of the Church! - supported the notion that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be Christians. It was only the events that happened to Peter than changed things.

Acts 15:12, "The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them."

Debate over. Peter hath spoken.

Protestants often focus on James, who speaks after. Well, notice the DEBATE was over. Everyone fell silent. The rest of the testimony at the council is in agreement with what Peter said.

First, we have Paul and Barnabas give their supporting testimony. And then James,the local head of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, added some disciplinary regulations for Gentile converts, so as not to upset the Jewish Christians in his congregation.

James wasn't in charge of this council. His statement is no more than a "concurring opinion." In the Supreme Court, one justice writes the majority opinion, and other justice can write concurring opinions. Peter is the chief justice, and gives the "majority" opinion - not majority by votes, but rather, supreme by position. James gives a concurring opinion. Any plain reading of the chapter shows that it is through Peter that the debate ends, through whom the issue is resolved. As Peter says, God chose to resolve this debate through Peter from the first place.

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).

This is definitely hypocritical BEHAVIOR. But it doesn't mean that Peter went and gave a sermon going back against his earlier decision at the Council of Jerusalem - that's a stretch if ever there was one. Hypocrisy is when you SAY one thing and DO another - so most definitely, the TEACHING of Peter at the time of the Antioch episode CAN'T be in agreement with his actions there. Peter's teaching was orthodox, but his behavior was hypocritical.

Likewise, a Pope can go out and give a sermon against this or that sin, and then go and privately commit that sin. Popes are not impeccable, and it is a considerable Protestant strawman fallacy to use the Galatians 2 example to somehow argue against Papal Infallibilty. It's laughable, really.

Galatians 2:11-12, "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."

Hypocritical behavior? Definitely. Proof against Papal Infalliblity? Nice try, but no.

Galatians 2:13-14, "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?"

Peter's behavior also called scandal, for others acted hypocritically as well. That means they were SAYING that Gentiles don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian, but ACTING in such a way as if that was not the case.

Consider Paul's words to Peter. They are an EXACT parallel to Peter's argument in Acts 15:10. Peter is appealing to Peter's OWN WORDS that decided the Council of Jerusalem to point out his hypocritical behavior.

Paul saying, "I opposed Peter!" is significant because the others had followed Peter's actions, so Paul needed to address the actions of the "ringleader." And he does so by appealing to Peter's own teaching. Another reason Paul singles Peter out is because of Peter's prominent role in the early Church. Few people are going to notice if I criticize the town secretary. A lot of people are going to notice if I criticize the President. Paul's point is that if it is not right for Peter, the leader of the Apostles, to behave the way that he did, then it is most certainly wrong for the Galatians to behave they way they are.

Paul's rebuke of Peter was most definitely a good thing. People HAVE rebuked Popes in the past, you know. That's what St. Catherine of Sienna did. Did she believe in the authority of the Pope? Yes. Did she reject Papal infallibility? No. So bringing up Galatians 2 is extremely important in understanding what occured in the early Church. But it is of absolutely no value in a debate concerning Papal Infalliblity, since it can only be used against a straw man, instead of the actual belief."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I hope you don't make use of this fallacy again.

Additionally, Ambrosial - do you realize that you provided a definition for papal infalliblity and most of your examples are about Popes SINNING, which wasn't even part of the definition of papal infalliblity that you yourself provided?!? Papal infallibility ISN'T papal impeccability. Popes are not sinless. Sheesh. Peter could be hypocritical, and other popes could do much worse. Totally unrelated to papal infallibility.

"1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis" the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, said that "He spent his entire life in adultery."

If Pope John XII proclaimed as a matter of dogma for the whole Church that, "Adultery is not a sin" THAT would violate papal infallibility. But a Pope committing adultery DOESN'T violate the definition of papal infalliblity.

One down. 7 to go.

"2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility."

If you keep trying to define papal infallibility as papal impeccability, then YES, all those men disagreed with it. However, they didn't disagree with papal infallibility, strictly defined. If they did, provide quotes. No one in this topic should read "these men disagreed" and simply believe you even though you have offered no backing. In fact, it appears that you are getting all this from some sort of anticatholic website, and those rarely, if ever, have footnotes and references.

"3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown in the Tiber river."

Definitely a reprehensible event, at least in my opinion. However, is that your evidence from this event against papal infallibility? That's not evidence, Ambrosial. That's just you taking a tidbit of historical knowledge and using it to back up your strawman fallacy.

"4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid."

Well, this is a LOT better in terms of an argument. What you pose here is indeed a contradiction.

However, did either of these men pronounce upon the matter as officially binding for the entire church, as a matter of doctrine? Well?

That's what you'd need for evidence. Popes don't always agree on EVERYTHING. But we don't get ex cathedra statements out of them that contradict the ex cathedra statements of other Popes.

Basically, your understanding of papal infallibility is MUCH, MUCH too broad. Why are you giving the Pope so much power?

"5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint."

A sin. Not a declaration applicable to the whole church. Strawman fallacy again.

"6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini."

Q: Which killed more people? The Fascists in Germany and Italy, or the Communists?

A: The Communists. While both systems were deplorable by our standards today, one often still had to "pick" between them. Pius XI was concerning in 1929 with communism, among other things. You act like him calling Mussolini a "man sent by God" is the equivalent of a canonization. It isn't. It's a personal opinion based on that Pope's view of what Mussolini did for the nation of Italy and a strong Italy meant an Italy that wouldn't fall to communism. The Pope came to realize just how bad, however, Mussolini was.

"7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler."

Okay, I'm a history major...and this is a load of CRAP.

What was a Concordant? A peace treaty of sorts. The Vatican signed it to protect the rights and freedoms of Catholics in Germany. It did NOT involve swearing allegiance to the Nazi state!

As early as 1935, Pius XII, the Papal nuncio to Germany, condemned the Nazis as "miserable plagiarists who draw up old errors with new tinsel." The Catholic Church was not in any way tolerant of Nazi Germany's racial policies. In 1938, Pius XII (then Eugenio Pacelli) wrote Mitt Brennender Sorge, an anti-Hitler encyclical, on behalf of Pope Piux IX, and it was smuggled into Germany/

"How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open-minded person."

And the strawman fallacies have totally delegitimized your entire argument. Maybe you should TRULY be honest, and admit that you are NOT being open-minded.

Here's the scenarion: you think that God alone can be infallible. You think it highly unlikely that any "man" can be infallible, because men sin. You find it impractical to define papal infallibility the way we Catholics do, so you redefine it in order to make it easier to attack. To you, the idea of being infallible conditionally, in just matters of faith and morals, and only with official declarations to the entire church, is untenable. So, you insist that the Pope must be SINLESS in order to be infallible.

Strawman fallacy. You aren't being open-minded at all. You'd agree that the Apostles were "conditionally infallible" when they wrote the New Testament. They were prevented by God from making errors, EVEN THOUGH they were sinners. So your argument that, since Popes can sin, they cannot be conditionally infallible as the Church teaches, is quite simply erroneous.

If you are going to attack papal infalliblity, please, attack our definition of it, instead of the straw man you choose to create. It will save us a lot of time and aggravation.

Your argument doesn't disprove papal infalliblity, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AND DEFINED, at all. And you are saying that any honest, open-minded person would agree - so therefore, since I disagree with this logically flawed argument, you would have to label me as dishonest, and closed-minded. That's not the case. It would be dishonest to attack a misrepresentation of a Catholic belief. Maybe you don't realize you have just done that - I just don't know. But it appears to be the case that you either purposely distorted the Catholic view of papal infallibility, or do not understand it. If the former, you've been caught red-handed. If the latter, I and the other Catholics here would be more than happy to explain it more clearly to you.

- Sean