Manage Account

<div>How will God respond to one’s prayer to grow taller?</div><div>Time will tell, but don’t become preoccupied with the matter. It’s not crucial to your salvation, and your genetic makeup will normally hold sway in such matters. Instead, pray regularly to grow in holiness. That will benefit you, your loved ones, and others with whom you interact.
</div>

Will God Make Me Taller?

Some Protestants argue that Paul’s letter to the Galatians shows Peter was just one leader among many—not the first pope. In this episode, I explain why Galatians 2:6 and 2:9 don’t undermine Peter’s unique role and actually make good sense within the broader biblical case for the papacy.
&nbsp;
TRANSCRIPT:
Was Peter really the first pope—or was he just one “pillar” among others? Some think Paul teaches the second view in his letter to the Galatians! But I don’t think he does.
Hey guys, Welcome back to the channel! So glad to have you with me. If you haven’t done so already, don’t forget to subscribe to the channel and hit that bell notification so you can be notified when new videos are released. Also, I’d like to invite you to consider helping keep this podcast going by financially supporting us on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
So, when it comes to the Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope, there’s definitely no shortage of objections. But today, I want to zero in on a couple of them that come straight out of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. There are two verses in Galatians 2 that Protestants often bring up as evidence that Paul didn’t see Peter as “the pope”: verses 6 and 9. Verse 11 is another but we’re gonna save that for some other time.
So let’s start with Galatians 2:6. Paul writes,
[PHONE READ]
And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me.
At first glance, it seems like Paul is putting himself on the same level as Peter—basically saying, “Hey, Peter’s not above me.” Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, a frequent contributor for the Protestant blog triablogue.com, took this line in a 1999 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220706184848/http:/www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/debate15.htm">debate</a> with Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore. Here’s what he argued:
[PHONE READ]
Paul asserted his equality with, not his superiority to, the other apostles ( . . . Gal. 2:6-8). Paul was not a pope, nor was Peter or any other apostle. It is the express testimony of Paul that what Peter and other prominent church leaders were meant nothing to him. . . . The equality and independence of Paul are a contradiction of the doctrine of the papacy.
And Jason isn’t the only one who reads Paul this way.
Tony Dupree, writing for renew.org in an article called <a href="https://renew.org/contributor/tony-dupree/">“Was Peter the First Pope?”</a>, says this about Galatians 2:6:
[PHONE READ]
Paul identifies these men “reputed to be something” in verse 9: James, John and Cephas (another name for Peter). What? Peter, the Pope, could add nothing to Paul? God shows no partiality? Doesn’t this description make you wonder about the Catholic teaching of the Papacy?
Protestant apologist Jim McCarthy falls right in line. In a 2024 <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHLKoMSaFyU">interview</a> on The Berean Call YouTube Channel, he stated the following:
[VIDEO]
in chapter 2:6 5:36 [Paul] goes out of his way to say that when 5:38 he went to speak to these men he he just 5:40 saw them as brothers in Christ he didn&#8217;t 5:42 see them as a hierarchy or someone to 5:45 whom he had to submit in terms of being 5:48 the head of the universal church. 
So the question is: does Galatians 2:6 really prove that Paul didn’t see Peter as having a higher rank of authority?
I don’t think so. And here’s a few reasons why.
First, the argument assumes that Peter’s authority meant nothing to Paul. But that’s not what Paul is saying. What meant nothing to him was the reputation—the high esteem—that Peter, James, and John had in the eyes of the Galatian Christians.
Evangelical scholar Richard N. Longnecker points this out in his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Word-Biblical-Commentary-Vol-Galatians/dp/0849902401">Galatians</a>. He says it’s not that Paul is dismissing Peter or the apostles themselves, but rather the inflated claims that the Jewish converts (whom Longnecker calls “Judaizers”) were making about them. He puts it like this:
[PHONE READ]
Contrary to many who deny irony in Paul’s usage, it seems hard to ignore at least a certain “dismissive” tone in Galatians 2—a dismissal, however, not of [Peter or] the Jerusalem apostles themselves, but of the Judaizers’ claims for them.
And what might these claims be? D.B. Orchard, in his commentary on Galatians in A Catholic Commentary of on Holy Scripture, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Commentary-Holy-Scripture/dp/B000P0NEAI">answers</a>, “the fact that the Twelve knew Jesus in the flesh before his Resurrection.” It was this fact that made them of “repute” in relation to Paul.
And if you look closely, Paul’s whole point in this section is about reputation. He says:
<ul>
<li>v. 2—“those who were of repute”</li>
<li>v. 6—“who were reputed to be something”</li>
<li>v. 9—“who were reputed to be pillars.”</li>
</ul>
So what’s Paul really saying? He’s saying, “Look, just because these guys are highly respected doesn’t mean I’m any less of an apostle. Jesus himself called me, and that makes me just as much an apostle as them.”
But here’s the key: being equal in apostleship doesn’t mean equal in rank of authority. Think about it. My wife and I are completely equal in dignity as human beings, but I still have the role of headship in our family. Or take Catholic Answers: Chris Check and all of us apologists are equally full-time employees, but Chris is the president—he’s the one steering the ship.
So, Paul’s comment about him being equal as an apostle doesn’t knock Peter off his role as chief apostle. In fact, Matthew 10:2 actually calls Simon protos—“first” when he lists the apostles, not in the sense of order, but in the sense of rank.
Now, another big problem with the Protestant argument is that it overlooks some key contextual details that actually show Paul recognizing Peter’s authority.
Take Galatians 1:18-19. Paul talks about his first trip to Jerusalem after his conversion:
[PHONE READ]
“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”
Notice that? Paul goes out of his way to visit Peter and spends more than two weeks with him. James is mentioned almost as an afterthought. Why would Paul single out Peter like that if he didn’t see him as being in charge?
So, if anything, that passage shows that Paul considered Peter the main guy during that visit.
Galatians 2:2 is another contextual detail. There, Paul writes,
[PHONE READ]
I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
The Greek word Paul uses here for “laid before them” is anatithemi. Greek scholars note that this word means “laying for the sake of consideration.” For example, the Greek-English Lexicon for the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (famously referred to as BDAG, which is an abbreviation for names of the editors), defines the Greek word anatithemi as
[PHONE READ]
to lay something before someone for consideration, communicate, refer, declare w. connotation of request for a person’s opinion . . . I laid my gospel before them Gal. 2:2. 
So here’s the question: why would Paul feel the need to lay his preaching before Peter for consideration if he didn’t see Peter as the visible principle of unity for preaching the gospel?
Bottom line: Galatians 2:6 might look at first like it undermines Peter’s authority. But when you look at the context, it’s not doing that at all. Paul isn’t rejecting Peter’s role as leader—he’s just pushing back against the inflated reputation the Jewish converts were attaching to Peter, James, and John.
And when you look at the bigger picture, Galatians actually supports the idea that Paul recognized Peter’s leadership in the early Church. Which means Galatians 2:6 really can’t be used as proof that Paul rejected the papacy.
Okay, let’s now turn to the objection from Galatians 2:9. Here’s what Paul says:
[PHONE READ]
“When they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.”
Now, you’ll notice Peter—called Cephas here—is listed second, right after James. And some argue that this proves Peter wasn’t unique in his role as the foundation of the Church, let alone the first pope.
Engwer, again, is someone who makes this point. He does so in his article, <a href="https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-pillars-of-roman-catholicism.html">“The Pillars of Roman Catholicism.” </a>Here’s how he puts it:
[PHONE READ]
It’s doubtful that people would have been grouping Peter with other apostles as pillars of the Church and naming him second, after James, if he was thought of as a pope. Catholics emphasize Peter being the foundation of the Church in Matthew 16, which sounds a lot like the pillar concept in Galatians 2:9. It’s unlikely the early Christians thought of Peter as such a unique foundation—an infallible ruler over all Christians—yet saw him the way Paul describes him here.
So, here’s the argument in simple form:
<ul>
<li>Premise 1: If Peter was uniquely the foundation of the Church, like Catholics say, he wouldn’t have been listed second in Galatians 2:9.</li>
<li>Premise 2: But he is listed second.</li>
<li>Conclusion: Therefore, Peter wasn’t unique as the foundation of the Church—he wasn’t the pope.</li>
</ul>
Let’s take a closer look at this.
The key assumption here is that being listed second means Peter wasn’t superior in rank—less important than James.
But is that a fair assumption? Not really.
Think about it: when we list people in a sentence or an email or a story, we don’t always put them in order of rank or importance. A lot of times, names just come to mind as we’re writing. The specific order of importance or greatness would only be of interest if that’s what we’re after.
This could have been the case for Paul. Paul could have been simply listing the names as they came to mind, without any intention to list them according to rank.
So unless Paul explicitly says he’s listing people based on rank—and he doesn’t—there’s no reason to assume that’s what’s going on.
Even if Paul were trying to say something with the order, it still wouldn’t disprove Peter’s special role. Why?
Because as I just showed from Galatians 1:18-19, Peter actually is portrayed as the top leader, even above James.
Now, let’s talk about James for a minute. Which James are we dealing with?
This isn’t James the brother of John—he was killed by Herod in Acts 12:2. This is James, the “brother of the Lord,” who stepped up to lead the Church in Jerusalem after Peter left.
That shift is hinted at in Acts 12:17, where Peter escapes prison and tells the others, “Tell this to James and the brothers.” After that, Peter leaves Jerusalem, which opened the door for James to take leadership in that local Church.
We even have early Church sources backing this up.
Eusebius, in Church History (Bk. 2, ch. 1), says James,
[PHONE READ]
“whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord.”
Jerome says the same in Lives of Illustrious Men, writing that
“James was once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem.”
So by the time Paul visits Jerusalem in Galatians 2:9—which was 14 years after that first visit, recorded in Gal. 2:1—James had become the local leader.
Protestant New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce explains in his The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text:
[PHONE READ]
On Paul’s earlier visit to Jerusalem, Cephas was the most important man in the church; Paul went up specifically to meet him, and adds that he also saw James. But all our evidence (scanty as it is) indicates that James became increasingly influential in the Jerusalem church. An opportunity to increase his influence at the expense of Cephas/Peter came with the latter’s departure from Jerusalem after his escape from Herod Agrippa’s prison (Acts 12:17) (pg. 121-122). 
These circumstances of James being the bishop in Jerusalem could explain why Paul lists James first: to acknowledge his current leadership in the Jerusalem church. Peter, meanwhile, was only there temporarily—for the Council of Jerusalem.
Here’s another interesting possibility. Paul may have listed James first to make a strategic point.
In Galatians 2:12, Paul mentions the “circumcision party”—Jewish Christians who believed Gentiles had to be circumcised. Paul says these guys came from James, and Peter ended up fearing them.
These people highly respected James. So if they were going to try and use anyone to argue against Paul, it would’ve been James.
But Paul flips the script.
He points out that James, Peter, and John all gave him the right hand of fellowship. They all approved of his ministry to the Gentiles—including James.
So, maybe Paul lists James first to hammer that home. In effect, he’s saying: “Even the guy you think would be on your side agrees with me.” That would totally undercut the circumcision party’s argument.
Here’s the takeaway:
Every argument is only as strong as the assumptions behind it.
In this case, the assumption that Peter being listed second means he wasn’t the pope just doesn’t hold up. There are plenty of good reasons Paul might have listed James first and not Peter:
<ul>
<li>It could’ve been random.</li>
<li>It could’ve reflected James’s role as bishop of Jerusalem at the time.</li>
<li>It could’ve been a deliberate move to disarm Paul’s opponents.</li>
</ul>
So no—Galatians 2:9 doesn’t prove Peter wasn’t the first pope.
There’s just not enough there to overturn the much broader biblical case for Peter’s special role, especially what we see in Matthew 16:18, where Jesus names Peter the rock.
So next time someone says, “Peter was just one of the guys—not the guy,” you’ve got some solid responses to offer.
At the end of the day, Galatians doesn’t knock Peter off his role as chief apostle—it actually makes sense once you look at the context. Paul was pushing back against inflated reputations, not Peter’s authority. And the order of names in Galatians 2:9 just doesn’t carry the weight Protestants want it to.
Bottom line: Peter wasn’t just a “regular ole pillar”—he was the rock Christ set at the foundation of his Church.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today! If you found this video helpful, make sure to like, subscribe, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And for more resources, check out my website at karlobroussard.com.
If you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support. You can find me over at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out, and I’ll see you next time!

Peter, a Regular Ole “Pillar”?

Here&#8217;s a skeptical meme I recently came across:

There are three problems with this (admittedly kind of funny) picture. Let’s take the first: Christians neglect the poor. 
This hardly seems worth the trouble to rebut. More than any other group you can identify, for centuries Christians have fed the poor, sheltered the homeless and orphan, tended to the sick, protected the refugee, comforted the afflicted, supported the widow and unwed mother, and generally lifted up the down and out. This includes official Church charities, parishes and religious orders, independent charities related to Christian groups or motivated by Christian conviction, and individual Christians who give their time, talent, and treasure to improve the lot of others in the world who need help. Christians do this because their Lord commands it, and a lot of his followers take him very seriously.
It&#8217;s not hard to Google websites that track nonprofits and see the enormous efforts undertaken by Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities, Caritas, and Food for the Poor, to name just a few of the big ones that spring immediately to mind. And they’re just the tip of the iceberg.
So any meme that starts with the ridiculous premise that Christians neglect the poor hardly deserves consideration for that reason alone. But let’s take a look at the other two assumptions anyway.
Are cathedrals useless? There are two ways we can respond here.
One is point out that the claim begs the question against Christians. This claim would be true if and only if God didn’t exist. If there were no God, it would be futile—and a big waste of time and effort—to erect enormous buildings for glorifying and worshipping him. But if God does exist, then he deserves the best, most beautiful, most sacred things we can make. (And believers deserve places that help lift their hearts and minds to him.) This objection assumes there’s no God to persuade someone to give up on believing in God. That’s classic circular reasoning—begging the question.
Finally, the third assumption: Christians who build cathedrals do so to feed a disordered desire to have expensive and ornate structures. Though this may be true for some, it doesn’t follow that it is true for all. Building ornate structures to glorify the Creator is an appropriate end-goal. If some Christians lose sight of that purpose, building cathedrals (for example) to indulge vanity or for personal profit, the problem is not with building cathedrals—it’s with those Christians’ disordered motives.
The meme may be cute and creative in its own way (when is Elmo not cute?). But trying to score cheap points against Christians and the ancient practice of building cathedrals is a waste of cuteness and creativity.

Quit Snorting Cathedrals! (and Other Atheist Admonitions)

<div>Is a wet dream a sin that needs to be confessed?</div><div>To commit a mortal sin, the act must be objectively sinful, the person must know that it is sinful, and the person must freely choose to commit the sin.
This latter requirement is not possible when the person is asleep and unconscious. So wet dreams are not sinful.
</div>

Nocturnal Emissions Aren’t Sinful

How do you answer a trans or gay person who tries to justify their lifestyle by saying “God made me this way”?

I want to thank Jason for tweeting about St. Bernadette’s church in Scottsdale years ago. It’s what got me to go back to Mass.

Do you think we as Catholics need to separate boys and girls at school more?

I became promiscuous because I was Mad at God. How does someone deal with the pain and anger?

I’d like to share how I overcame my desires when a priest in the confessional gave me the chastity prayer of St. Augustine.

As a father of young girls, how can I tell them that not liking stereotypically feminine things isn’t a sign that they’re actually boys?

Chastity

Not long ago, I received a wedding invitation from a relative. As with many of today’s “baptized pagans”—people who were initiated into the Church but never lived intentionally as an adult Catholic—he&#8217;s planning a secular ceremony. Because he was baptized a Catholic, though, he is still subject to Church law regarding “canonical form” for marriage.
The requirement of canonical form means that, when a baptized Catholic says “I do” in a rite that falls outside of what the Church prescribes (and without getting a dispensation), in fact he does not. The marriage doesn’t take. Two lifelong Protestants can get married in a Protestant ceremony and have a sacramental union, but a baptized Catholic who later became a Protestant cannot. And non-Catholics can contract a valid natural marriage (when one or both parties is unbaptized) by making vows in any number of settings. A baptized Catholic marrying an unbaptized person can’t (see canons <a href="https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=1117">1117</a>, <a href="https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=1086">1086</a>, etc.).
This can be tough to take, even for someone (like me) who would be considered a hard-liner on <a href="https://shop.catholic.com/20-answers-marriage-sex/">Catholic teaching about marriage.</a> Many believing Catholics and regular Mass-goers don’t know about the requirement of canonical form. How much less would someone who hasn’t been inside a church since infancy? And why should someone who doesn’t even believe that Catholicism is true even care? And yet the Church exercises its power to deprive such persons of a valid marriage.
It’s a purely juridical power. There is no necessary reason why such a person couldn’t marry outside canonical form. There is no concession to reality (like a previously contracted valid marriage) that the Church is forced to make. It’s just a matter of law; a law that could be different.
In fact, not very long ago, the law was different. Canon 1117 used to allow for “a formal act of defection” from the Church that would dispense a person from canonical form. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici.html">did away with that provision</a> and changed the text of several relevant canons. I can see the practical arguments for that change. You never want to encourage formal apostasy, of course. Requiring canonical form also discourages secret marriages that can become practical headaches. And, as Benedict himself pointed out, invalidity due to defect of form makes it easier for tribunals to annul marriages of people who later wish to return to the Church and remarry “following the failure of a preceding marriage.”
On the other hand, though, keeping material apostates on the books doesn’t seem to be of much benefit for them, or the Church, if they’re just technical Catholics who don’t actually believe or practice the Faith. Furthermore, denying such people the sacramental graces of marriage (if they’re both baptized) or the bond of a natural marriage (if the other person isn’t) seems contrary to concern for their souls and their families. And the ease with which such unions can later be annulled, pace B16, could be considered a bug, not a feature!
But my biggest problem is pastoral. Do we think that such people will be more likely to return to the Church upon learning that Rome has stretched out its arm to deny them marriage, or less? What would you think of a religion—with which you don’t identify in any way—that claims to be able to neutralize your marriage on a legal pretext? Would you be attracted or repulsed?
In my relative’s case, I suspect that it would be an obstacle, not an aid, to re-evangelization. It wouldn’t come across as one of those hard truths that nonetheless compel by their power. It would just seem mean.
Catholicism isn’t a club that you join and un-join. I get it. Baptism is an indelible mark on the soul, not a mailing list you unsubscribe from by checking a box on a screen. At the same time, I think we have to recognize that many people have been initiated into the Faith but never assented to it by an adult act of the will. Their souls are Catholic forever, but their hearts and minds are something else. We have to reckon with that, too.
At a time when Catholic leaders are talking about all kinds of ways to accompany and extend mercy to those on the “peripheries,” some of these ways quite dubious, it seems fitting to consider easing the legal requirements of canonical form so as not to deny valid marriage to those who are capable of it. That would be an act of mercy wholly within the Church’s power that legitimately accompanies people where they are—and does not strain doctrine or morals to do so. And from there, we may hope that the graces and goods of marriage will make them more responsive to our prayers and pleas for their return to the Faith.

No Marriage For You!

Is purgatory biblical, or is it just a Catholic man-made tradition? In this video, Joe presents four different arguments showing the existence of purgatory IS biblical, and responds to four of the most common criticisms of the doctrine of purgatory.