vation of revealed truth, as well as the power of the keys, was given to Peter only collectively with his fellow-workers in the apostleship.
St. Paul knew no more than the evangelists of superior powers having been conferred upon St, Peter. Beside the texts that we have already quoted, we read in the Epistle to the Galatians, (2:7, 8, 9,) that Paul ascribes to himself, among the Gentiles, the same power that Peter had among the Jews, and that he did not regard Peter as superior to James and John, whom he calls, like Peter, the pillars of the Church. He even names James, Bishop of Jerusalem, before Peter when he gives them their title of pillars of the Church; he believed so little in any authority of Peter, that he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
When the apostles assembled at Jerusalem, Peter spoke in council only as a simple member of the assembly, not even the first, but after many others. He felt himself obliged in presence of the other apostles — some old disciples and some faithful followers — to renounce publicly his opinion upon the necessity of circumcision and other Judaical ceremonies. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, summed up the discussion, proposed the resolution which was adopted, and acted as the veritable president of the assembly. (Acts 15:7.)
The apostles then did not consider St. Peter as the foundation-stone of the Church. Consequently the Papal interpretation of the famous text, Tu es Petrus, is as contrary to Holy Scripture as it is to Catholic tradition.
We can not see any serious objection to the manner in which we understand it. Our interpretation necessarily results from the comparison of the various texts of Scripture relating to the same subject.
From a Catholic and traditional point of view it presents every guarantee — in fine, the text considered in
