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.*