Rebutting a Catholic apologist, #3: “Paul Rebuked Peter”

Today, we continue our series of responses to “Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answer 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs” (2019), written by Karlo Broussard. The Catholic apologist continues his six-part section on church hierarchy and authority with a chapter countering Protestants’ argument that Peter (and hence the pope) was not infallible because “Paul Rebuked Peter.”


The notion of papal infallibility began gaining popularity within Roman Catholicism in the 15th century, but it wasn’t until 1870, after Italian nationalist forces had occupied the former Papal States and prepared to liberate Rome, that a defiant pope Pius IX pressured the bishops attending the First Vatican Council to declare as dogma that popes were infallible when they taught on matters vital to faith and morals. Although he could not resist the temporal power of the Risorgimento liberators, Pius IX could assert his alleged spiritual superiority by having himself proclaimed as infallible (he also excommunicated everyone who participated in the Risorgimento). As a dogmatic teaching, all Roman Catholics were thereafter required to believe the pope was infallible under threat of damning mortal sin.

Ever since 1870, Protestants have cited Galatians 2:11-14 to refute the notion of papal infallibility:

“But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with 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 force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

If Peter was the first pope and infallible, as Catholics claim, then why was he leading the church into serious error by hypocritically abstaining from eating with Gentiles in the presence of Jewish legalists, for which he had to be publicly corrected by Paul?

Broussard argues that Protestant critics reveal their very faulty understanding of papal infallibility by citing this passage. According to the Catholic standard, only when a pope speaks ex cathedra, officially “from the chair” of St. Peter, in declaring a doctrine as dogma is a teaching considered divinely-guided and infallible. Broussard admits that Peter’s behavior at Antioch was reprehensible and worthy of rebuke, but the bad behavior did not meet the conditions required of dogmatic infallibility. Peter wasn’t acting in his office as supreme teacher of the church in that circumstance at Antioch, argues Broussard. He was just being a cowardly hypocrite.

I understand Broussard’s argument. Protestants do present a bit of a straw man fallacy by presenting Galatians 2:11-14 as a refutation of papal infallibility according to the strict Catholic definition. However, there definitely are many problems with the claim of papal infallibility that Broussard conveniently doesn’t touch upon:

  • While Peter may not have been declaring dogma at Antioch, his example was leading many into dangerous doctrinal error. Catholics have historically claimed that popes were incapable of leading the church into error.
  • It’s ironic beyond measure that Broussard chooses to examine Galatians 2 in his defense of papal infallibility. Following Paul’s description of his rebuke of Peter, the apostle follows with one of the clearest defenses of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone in Galatians 2:15-21. The passage directly contradicts the salvation-by-merit theology that is at the heart of Roman Catholicism.
  • The history of the papacy is filled with incidents that do not reflect well on claims of papal infallibility in matters vital to faith and morals including the heterodoxy of pope Honorius, the Cadaver Trial of pope Formosus, the authorization of the Crusades and the Inquisitions, the Great Western Schism, the authorized selling of indulgences, the condemnation of Galileo, etc., etc., etc.
  • Catholic theologians can only agree upon three papal declarations as being infallibly dogmatic: the immaculate conception of Mary (1854), papal infallibility (1870), and the assumption of Mary into Heaven (1950). What is the point of papal infallibility if it is so rarely exercised?

Important: Just as with the two previous chapters on papal authority, Broussard purposely omits any mention of the current CRISIS within Catholicism regarding the papacy. Pope Francis has overturned three doctrines previously held to be unchangeable: (1) the ban on communion for remarried divorcees, (2) the ban on communion to Protestants (Protestant spouses of Catholic members may now receive communion according to the discretion of each bishop), and (3) the licitness of capital punishment. Conservative Catholic leaders are advising their follows to ignore Francis’s changes and some are even calling the pope a heretic. Catholics are wrestling with how an infallible pope can overturn doctrines considered unchangeable by previous infallible popes. Francis has even gone out of his way to downplay assertions of papal infallibility/prerogatives by emphasizing that “a pope can be wrong” (see here). As Broussard and other conservative Catholic apologists attempt to defend the bastion of papal infallibility, their own pope is busily dismantling the bogus dogma.

Next up: “Where Two or Three Are Gathered”

42 thoughts on “Rebutting a Catholic apologist, #3: “Paul Rebuked Peter”

  1. This dogma of Papal Infallibility is such a joke. The conditions of ex cathedral are so ad hoc that it’s simply a case of special pleading.

    The early church absolutely believed that a Pope could be a heretic as shown by the 6th ecumenical council condemning and anathemazing Honorius as a heretic.

    6th ecumenical council: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches. NPNF2, Vol 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Sixth Ecumenical Council, The Third Council of Constantinople. a.d. 680–681., The Sentence Against the Monothelites, Session XIII. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Pg 612

    6th ecumenical council: Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches! O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith! Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate! To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul the heretic, anathema! To Peter the heretic, anathema! To Macarius the heretic, anathema! To Stephen the heretic, anathema! To Polychronius the heretic, anathema! To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema! To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema! May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council! NPNF2, Vol 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Sixth Ecumenical Council, The Third Council of Constantinople. a.d. 680–681., Session XVI. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Pg 613

    6th ecumenical council: The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation. NPNF2, Vol 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Sixth Ecumenical Council, The Third Council of Constantinople. a.d. 680–681.,The Definition of Faith. (Found in the Acts, Session XVIII., L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1019.). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Pg 614-615

    6th ecumenical council: Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius and Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter (who were archbishops of Constantinople), moreover Cyrus, who bore the priesthood of Alexandria, and with them Honorius, who was the ruler (πρόεδρον) of Rome, as he followed them in these things. NPNF2, Vol 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Sixth Ecumenical Council, The Third Council of Constantinople. a.d. 680–681.,The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1047 et seqq.), Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Pg 619

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Thanks Jim. I used to discourse with Romanists, and I learned from William Webster and David King. I’ve moved on to Islam now.

        What I’ve found is that Romanists are long on claims short on substance, and they make heavy use of philosophical arguments to cover their empty claims. Ignore all that sophistry and force them to show proof, and they really have nothing.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. As these folks note, Honorius was condemned because the council had viewed him as a heretic:

    Klaus Schatz S.J.: for it is an undisputed fact that must be maintained against all attempts to water it down that the council and the subsequent popes clearly condemned Honorius as a heretic. In other words, they were absolutely convinced that a pope could fall into heresy. Papal Primacy, from its Origins to Present, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996,pg 55

    John Meyendorff: This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous ‘fall of Honorius,’ for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681)—a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries—Protestants, Orthodox and ‘anti–infallibilists’ at Vatican I in 1870—would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out—quite anachronistically—that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his ‘charisma of infallibility,’ as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope’s good intentions—which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history—it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula—the beginning of a tragedy, from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 353).

    Easter Orthodox Patriarchs: Thus did our Fathers judge and condemn Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, and Macedonius and Nestorius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Peter Gnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch, with others. Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848

    Charles Joseph Hefele, Bishop of Rottenburg: It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic!…That, however, the sixth Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him.
    1) At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: ‘After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign…to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor…them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.’
    2) Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.
    3) Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus…’
    4) Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: ‘The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.’
    5) After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: ‘Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them.’
    6) In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: ‘We have destroyed the effort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus,’ etc.
    7) In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: ‘With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of old Rome…the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who contradicted himself…We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present…besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius…also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’

    It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius…in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council…in his letter to the Spanish bishops…and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig.
    Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by…the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after…Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: ‘We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning…Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.’ The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places…To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself.
    In the Liber Diurnus, i.e. the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath…according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that ‘he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius’ Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church Edinburgh: Clark, 1896, Volume V, pg. 181-187

    Liked by 1 person

  3. We must not forget Liberius, under pressure from the Emperor, signing an Arian creed:

    Jerome (347-420): Liberius was ordained the 34th bishop of the Roman church, and when he was driven into exile for the faith, all the clergy took an oath that they would not recognize any other bishop. But when Felix was put in his place by the Arians, a great many foreswore themselves; but at the end of the year they were banished, and Felix too; for Liberius, giving in to the irksomeness of exile and subscribing to the heretical and false doctrine, made a triumphal entry into Rome. E. Giles, ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454 (Westport: Hyperion Press, reprinted 1982), p. 151. Cf. S. Hieronymi Chronicon, Ad Ann. 352, PL 27:684-685.

    Johann Ignaz Von Dollinger: Liberius purchased his return from exile from the Emperor by condemning Athanasius, and subscribing an Arian creed. ” Anathema to thee, Liberius !” was then the cry of zealous Catholic bishops like Hilary of Poitiers. This apostasy of Liberius sufficed, through the whole of the middle ages, for a proof that Popes could fall into heresy as well as other people. Johann Joseph Ignaz Von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, London, Rivingtons 1869, page 68

    Klaus Schatz, S,J:The further course of the Arian controversy seems to present the picture of a conflict in which Rome by no means prevailed; in fact, it appears that Rome did not even make an energetic and deliberate attempt to counteract the increasing deviation from Nicea. The Roman bishops Julius and his successor Liberius (352—366) did at first belong to the small group of those who remained true to Athanasius. Over time this certainly contributed to the strengthening of Rome’s authority, especially in the East, but we can by no means speak of anything like success at first. Even the Roman church had its weak moments: Bishop Liberius, under imperial pressure (he was separated from his community, sent into exile, and replaced by an antibishop) accepted a formula of faith that, while not expressly denying the formula of Nicea, deviated from and practically abandoned it. Liberius also broke communion with Athanasius. Papal Primacy, from its Origins to Present, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996, p. 26

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Tom, Unam Sanctam is also considered by many to be “infallible”, though Romanists can’t even form a consensus on this:

    Pope Boniface VIII: Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: “The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man” [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven” etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII, UNAM SANCTAM, November 18, 1302

    Cardinal Henry Edward Manning: But next, it the Vatican Council has not spoken of the Civil Powers, nevertheless it has defined that the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is infallible : this definition, by retrospective action, makes all Pontifical acts infallible, the Bull Unam Sanctam included ; and, by prospective action, will make all similar acts in future binding upon the conscience. The Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, Catholic Publication Society, 1875, Pg 20-21

    Matthias Joseph Scheeben: The main forms in which ex cathedra decisions are given, especially according to the newer style, are as follows:

    (508) l. The most solemn and most prominent form consists of the so-called Dogmatic Constitutions or Bulls, which lay down and promulgate judgments expressly in the form of general ecclesiastical laws Icanonsl that are sanctioned with strict punishments, e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorern fidei against the Jansenists, and Ineffabilis Deus about the Immaculate Conception. With these, since the text is usually very clear by itself, it makes no difference whether they are addressed in the inscription to the whole Church (like the Bull Unigenitus) or not (like the Bulls Unam sanctum and Ineffabilis Deus). Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics 1.1, Matthias Joseph Scheeben, Emmaus Academic, Jan 31, 2019

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What’s most interesting about Unam Sanctam is Catholics disagree on how to interpret it. Very conservative and traditionalist Catholics would take the literal interpretation, as priest Leonard Fenney did, that outside the church there is no salvation. Most other Catholics “modernize” it to mean non-Catholics and even atheists can also merit their salvation via the graces that flow from the RCC.


    1. Thanks, brother! I applied to 6 jobs yesterday and that drained the well, so I didn’t see any new job postings today. I just did a lot of online networking stuff. How’s your day going?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s a movie. I did watch it last night. Review to follow at some point. It’s a puff piece for pope Francis, showing how he’s changing the church from the old style (represented by pope Benedict XVI) to his progressive version to better “minister to the world.” Nary a word about Jesus Christ. Conservative Catholics won’t like this movie at all.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Thanks, brother. I’m doing mostly R&R today. It’s strange how job searching is draining even though there’s no physical work involved. How’s your day going?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Whenever any of our church guys go through job search it invoke so much of my sympathies since its sooo hard to see how hard it is looking for a job. I’m praying for this job search.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Thanks, brother! The Rochester economy isn’t what it used to be and most companies don’t want to hire a 63YO for a supervisory position only to have to fill the position again in a few years. I get my last severance check next Thursday and then I’ll be collecting unemployment for 6 months. I’ll continue looking for a supervisory job, but when I start to get to the end of unemployment, I’ll take any job, through a temp agency or whatever.


  5. A biblical and logical dilemma for Roman Catholic transubstantiation:

    “I am the bread of life…I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (John 6:48; 51)

    The Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation means that the substance of Jesus Christ’s flesh and blood takes the place of the substance of the bread and wine on the condition of a priest consecrating them.

    The communion elements are no longer bread and wine upon them being consecrated. They are fully the body and blood of Christ. The bread appears to be bread in every way, despite this miraculous transformation. This change cannot be grasped by our senses.

    In short, the bread is Jesus Christ Himself (and the wine His blood). If Jesus Christ is the Bread of Life who descended from heaven, then that would mean He is present wherever the bread is. If no bread remains after transubstantiation takes place, then that would also mean Christ cannot be present in that way. If a person wants to say that the wafer (host) is Jesus’ body and that the “bread” which we see no longer exists, then he or she cannot have it both ways in this aspect of Catholic theology.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Hi, Tom! For what it is worth, I am inclined to believe the incident in Galatians 2 comes BEFORE the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. It surprises me that this author did not mention Peter and his role at said council. Whether Peter backslid in Gal 2 or he owned his sinful behavior in Acts 15, Peter reveals himself to be no different than us. I had no clue that Gal 2 was a proof text for papal infallibility. Again, whether Acts 15 was before or after this event, no person has a right to pick and choose what they will obey and adhere to, most certainly Peter. I do not understand why this author would omit mentioning Acts 15. I realize in the previous chapter he spoke on James, but I think that Galatian 2 requires the author to interact with Acts 15, there is just too much there. Love and blessings to you and Corrine! Ps: I may not comment on all these past ones but please know I am reading them!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Mandy! Yes, I agree with you that the Galatians 2 encounter probably happened before Acts 15 and that Peter did own up to his previous behavior at Antioch at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter’s compromise was a serious dereliction and Catholics attempt to gloss over it by appealing to the “ex cathedra” clause, which they routinely do any time someone brings up unflattering papal history.

      Just to clarify, Rome doesn’t use Galatians 2 as a proof text for papal infallibility. In this series, I’m rebutting the rebuttals of a Catholic apologist. So Broussard presents Galatians 2 as a Protestant proof text AGAINST Catholic papal infallibility and then he attempts to rebut it. I know it’s somewhat confusing because I’m rebutting a rebuttal, but such is the nature of the beast.

      Broussard made many spurious claims for Peter and his role at the Council of Jerusalem that contradict an objective interpretation of the text of Acts 15, which I covered in #1: “James Led the Council.” He claims Peter was acting in his role as pope in Gal. 2 (doing a poor job there) as well as in Acts 15 (although no one would interpret that he was the pope of the church from that text). To read all of Paul’s epistles is to understand there was no pope.

      Thanks for reading all of my previous posts in this series! I appreciate your support and feedback. Thank you and love and blessings to you and Nathan!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Nope, I don’t have any background in Greek other than my handy concordance. 🙂 When Broussard pulls out his Greek Lexicon, I have to dig into the concordance and additional Bible reference tools on the internet.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s