I have been researching both sides of the argument (he was, he wasn’t), and have come upon some research I am having trouble disputing. I’m hoping it is allowed for me to post the link, since I can’t type down all the quotes, and my questions from them. There’s only so much space on this forum!
One of the biggest problems I have is that certain ECFs will be quoted by the RC, and his position seems pro-papal. However, then the whole quote will be shown, and it looks as if it was yanked out of context of his teachings.
For instance, Tertullian talks about Peter being the rock and so forth, but then he later says that Peter himself was the rock only, not his successors (popes). Peter essayed the key by his preaching, and the church was therefore built through him.
Also, Origen says that if we are all like Peter if we proclaim the same as he did- that Christ is the Son of the living God. If we say that the Church was built ONLY on Peter (his emphasis), then what about John, son of Thunder or the other apostles?
Cyprian says that Peter is a source of unity for the church, and is the Rock, but is a figurative representative of the bishops of the church. They all have the same power based on Matthew 18.
I’ve been told that the church was concilliar, not monarchial, such as in Acts 15. Peter didn’t simply say this is what must be done, and the others did it. The people did not come simply to Peter alone, but to James as well. When did that change?
Thanks in advance for your help. I’ve been greatly helped by this forum. Pray for me as I attend summer RCIA meetings, and decide whether to continue from there. My son attends a Catholic school, and any parent, Catholic or no, is invited.