Argument Presented In Another Thread Against Peter Being The First Pope


#1

The following was posted by a person called “narrow path” in another thread. I believe someone noted that this argument against the Church and the Papacy is oft used and tired. Still, I’d like to get some opinion from others more versed than me on responses to these arguments. Thanks!

*If the majority of Protestant scholars accept that petros/petra are actually refering to Peter as being the foundation of the Church, then they would not be Protestant. Kind of goes without saying.

Also, I suspect that loyalties in this thread lie with the Church–not with Scripture…which is quite sad. The bottom line,of course, is that there is no mention (or any evidence at all) of Peter being called a “Pope”, nor is there a mention of a papacy. Surely Peter would have said something–anything–to be clear that he was in fact the “Supreme Pontiff.” After all, Peter was getting along in years and would have supported the idea of his readers knowing that someone needed to follow his succession in Rome. But Peter did no such thing because there was no papacy.

It goes on and on. Paul affirmed in 2 Cor. 12:11 that he was not inferior to ANY of the other apostles. Paul would not have said this had a papacy been in existence. Paul is also the prominent figure in the book of Acts, chapters 13-28…this would make little sense if Peter were supreme. Also, Paul even lists the authority structure of the church in 1 Cor. 12:28: “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers…” There is simply no mention of a papacy…because there was never one in existence. Luke 22:24 shows the disciples quarreling amongst themselves as to who who be considered the greatest in the kingdom. Now why would they be quarreling about this when Peter was clearly supreme, as being nominated by Christ Himself to head of the church?

As I mentioned before, in the Jerusalem council, Paul publicly corrected Peter on a matter of faith (while Peter was allegedly considered by Christ to be supreme). This would have been unacceptable had Peter been head of the church. Somtimes I think that Catholics simply have never read the Bible (a sad statement) and rely soley on the church…and follow literally everything they say. Here’s an idea: Rely on Scripture. It is the God-ordained source of Truth…not the church headed by fallible man.*


#2

graves << If the majority of Protestant scholars accept that petros/petra are actually refering to Peter as being the foundation of the Church, then they would not be Protestant. Kind of goes without saying. >>

One point. Doesn’t go without saying since the majority of Protestant scholars today do accept Peter is the rock of Matthew 16. As for foundation of the Church, all would admit the apostles are foundation stones of the Church (Eph 2:19-20; Rev 21:14) with Jesus being the chief cornerstone and ultimate foundation (1 Cor 3:11). But I think it is true that most if not the vast majority of Protestant scholars in their commentaries on Matthew are willing to admit Peter is the rock, but they try to downplay any connection this has to the Catholic Papacy. I quote a number of them, mostly found at random at U.S.F. university library, some repeated in the Butler/Dahlgren/Hess book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys.

Peter, Rock, Keys, Primacy of Rome

Phil P


#3

You might point out that Catholics do read the bible and that the bible does not say that Paul corrected Peter at the Council of Jerusalem. The correction to Peter was for his hypocrisy in front of the Judaizers. The reason for the hypocrisy was because it was Peter that made the decision at the Council of Jerusalem concerning circumcision and the gentiles, but then gave a bad public example that was witnessed by Paul.


#4

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.