The Year of St. Paul will end this June 29. Therefore, I intended to go through the life of St. Paul with the choir members within these remaining weeks. I was amazed that some of the younger members mixed up Peter and Paul, probably because of the similarity in their names in Chinese 伯多祿 and 保祿. One of them thought that Paul was the rock on which Jesus said he would build his church. Therefore, I knew that I still have a lot of work to do to help these young people know their faith. In fact, they know quite a bit. They are familiar with the story of the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus. I was much relieved. To consolidate their knowledge a little, I asked them how the two saints died and why they died in different manners. They know that Paul was beheaded and Peter crucified upside down. I added that Paul was a Roman citizen and would die in a more dignified way whereas Peter was not. Therefore he died in a shameful way like a Roman slave.
Some of them were quick to point out that Peter was our first Pope. I did not go into the detail of the meaning of a Pope and asked them to find out how many Popes we have. From the Catholic Directory, they know that Benedict XVI is the 254th Pope. Then I brought up the issue of Peter being the first Pope and the Pope enjoyed infallibility. We turned to Galatian 2 to read the story of the Antioch incident which the Protestants love to quote to discredit Peter as the first Pope and the infallibility a Pope enjoyed.
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 the circumcision party.
And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity (Galatians 2:11-13).
Cephas was Peter in Hebrew. James was the brother of the Lord and the head of the church in Jerusalem. Barnabas was a partner of Paul in his missionary journeys. Circumcision was important for Jews because it defined their identity as the Chosen People. Jewish Christians were very much concerned and confused because without circumcision, how the Gentile Christians would be saved. If circumcision were not essential for salvation, the Jews would be disillusioned. They would lose their identity. The "circumcision party" was a group of Jewish Christians, probably from Jerusalem, advocating the circumcision of Gentile Christians in order to avoid attacks from Jews who were not Christians. Paul debated hotly with them because they imposed unnecessary burden on those who wanted to become Christians. This much was the background.
Paul respected and harboured high expectation on Peter. Therefore Paul was even more greatly disappointed by Peter's behaviour and scolded him in public because he had set a bad example of insincerity and led others, including even Barnabas, to follow him. His fury was justified. But does this mean that popes also make mistakes and not infallible? If Popes are infallible, Peter was not a pope. If Peter was the first Pope, then popes do not enjoy infallibility. This Protestant argument is impeccable.
I am afraid many Catholics, not just Protestants, do not know that the privilege of papal infallibility is confined within a very narrow scope.
The Pope is infallible only when exercising his office as the pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine of faith and moral.
Obviously, the Antioch incident was not such a situation. Peter did not define or proclaim any doctrine of faith and moral. His behaviour might be questionable, but that did not disqualify him as the first Pope, nor that Popes were fallible.
We then speculated why Peter avoided the Gentile Christians when men from the Jerusalem Church arrived in Antioch. What was his motive?
Then we turned to a passage written by Paul himself, chapter 8 in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It is a discussion on whether Christians should eat food offered to idols. To set his tone, Paul wrote the following famous line.
Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1b).
Our faith is mature. We know that there is only one true God. Idols are no god at all (1 Corinthians 8:4-5). Therefore food offered to idols is not contaminated. It remains what it is --- food for our belly. Possessing this knowledge, Christians of course may eat any food, whether it be offered to idols or not.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7).
However, that is a big "however"! Paul brought out the theme he would elaborate later --- charity is greater than faith.
Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.
Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Corinthians 8:8-9).
To add weight to his argument, Paul pushed it a step further that such a stumbling action is a sin against the Lord (1 Corinthians 8:12)!
And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.
Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brotTher to fall (1 Corinthians 8:11-13).
I am not defending Peter's behaviour. We can never know what was going on in his mind when he avoided Gentile Christians in the presence of the circumcision party. Was Peter concerned about the conscience of the circumcision party? Did Peter want to look good in front of the circumcision party? We will never know. But charity remains a possibility.
Today, we celebrate the feast of Corpus Christi. It is a mystery which we will never fathom. No theological speculations will ever exhaust the richness of it. How can it possible be? Love can only be sung, not to be reasoned.
Today, Fr. Patrick Sun quoted the tragedy of the father who covered with his own body his three-year-old son when a mental patient chopped the boy to death. Love involves sacrifice and Jesus has shown his great love for us, not just through dying on the cross to cleanse us of all sins, but also in offering himself to us in the Holy Eucharist. (Of course, Richard Dawkins would smilingly congratulate himself of his ingenious explanation --- The Selfish Gene. The Self Gene was just trying to preserve itself.) But love cannot be explained. It can only be demonstrated and Jesus has demonstrated his love beyond any doubt.
My sweet Jesus, I am not worthy to receive You. But I know that You will never depart from me. Let me go to You and surrender myself. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment