I’m trying to defend the Catholic faith position as being able to trace it’s roots back to St. Peter and I need help in countering the following …
The biblical description of the apostle Peter, as compared to that of the Roman pontiff, is like contrasting daylight with darkness. Consider the following factors:
*]The Roman Church considers the state of celibacy to be a holier status than that of matrimony, hence, the pope cannot be married. Clearly, though, Peter was a married man.
Matthew records an instance where the Lord healed the apostle’s mother-in-law (8:14). And in a defense of his apostleship, Paul once said that he had as much right to have a wife as Cephas (Peter) did (1 Cor. 9:5).
Additionally, Peter was an “elder” (1 Pet. 5:1), which means that he was also a husband (1 Tim. 3:2).
*]A survey of the news coverage of the pope’s activities revealed how very desirous he is of human adulation. People bow before him, he extends his hand for kisses, etc.
By way of vivid contrast, when the centurion, Cornelius, fell at Peter’s feet to worship, the apostle rebuked him thusly: “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:26). Not only was Peter not given to inordinate adoration, when he sinned by hypocritically refusing to fellowship Gentiles, he was openly rebuked to his face by Paul (Gal. 2:11ff).
*]There is a great deal of information about the travels of Peter as his apostolic activity took him from place to place. And yet, there is not one line in the New Testament which suggests that he was ever in the city of Rome, much less exercising the authority of the church in that community.
Consider this: when Paul penned his epistle to the saints in the city of Rome (c. A.D. 56 – perhaps more than a score of years after the church was established there), though he sent personal greetings to, and mentioned, more than twenty people (Rom. 16), he never once referred to the “Holy Father,” who was supposedly occupying the papal chair in that city. A strange circumstance indeed – if the claims of Catholicism are true.
Moreover, towards the end of his ministry, Paul spent two years (under house arrest) in Rome. How odd that the divine record (Acts 28) makes no mention of any association with the “pope.” This is especially significant in light of the fact that inspiration mentions a brief, fifteen-day trip that Paul made to Jerusalem during which time he saw Peter (Gal. 1:18). And yet, two years in the same city with the “pontiff” – and not a word about it!
*]About twenty years after the establishment of the church, a controversy arose regarding circumcision. Would Gentiles be obligated to receive this ordinance in conjunction with their acceptance of Christianity? A council was convened in Jerusalem to discuss the matter. Had Peter been pope, surely he would have presided over this affair; but he did not. James was the leading figure; Peter was merely a testifying witness (Acts 15).
There is simply no evidence at all that Peter was ever recognized as a pope. As a matter of fact, the term “pope” is not even in the New Testament!
… freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=272481&postcount=132 (anyone who wants to join in the discussion themselves, is more than welcomed)