Why do Protestants Avoid St. Peter So Much?


#1

From listening to Protestants on the radio I find that they seem to preach about the writings of St. Paul and avoid mentioning St. Peter.

The main Bacillica in Rome is named St. Peter’s. Our first Pope was St. Peter. It was St. Peter that in Matt Ch16, v18 - 20 that Jesus said to Peter,“Peter, you are the Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church”.

Why is it that Protestants seem to welcome Paul but not Peter?


#2

Since I’m not Protestant perhaps I shouldn’t attempt to answer. St Paul wrote much more of the Bible than St Peter, therefore there is much more emphasis on the teachings of Paul. I don’t know that they purposefully ignore the teachings of Peter, they simply have more to work with on Paul. If I were a Protestant, I doubt I would emphasize the leadership role played by Peter, to do so would undermine my own church’s authority. If Peter was indeed the first pope, if the Words of Jesus were truly giving authority to Peter and his successors, and the Catholic Church has continued since its inception, unbroken, what authority does any other church have?


#3

To many protestants if it’s not in the Bible it’s not worth mentioning. Since Paul wrote so much of the new testament they naturally appeal to him more.


#4

Hi,

Im a protestant and the only reaon I can think of is that Paul wrote so much of the NT, more then Peter. I doubt it has anything to do with the CC and what they teach of Peter. At least that is how I feel.:smiley:


#5

allforhim

Im a protestant and the only reaon I can think of is that Paul wrote so much of the NT, more then Peter.

Not so sure about that. The essence of the New Testament is in the Gospels, not in the letters of Paul. Which would we rather be without?

My last impressions of scholarly research on this subject is that Catholics and Protestants now agree Mark, not Matthew, was the first Gospel written. Since Mark was a close disciple of Peter and his secretary, it stands to reason that the Gospel of Mark was an accumulation of material revealed by Peter to Mark. How else could it be, since Mark was not an eye witness to the life of Christ as Peter was? Therefore the Gospels receives their first impetus from Peter, not Paul. And doesn’t it likewise stand to reason that Paul would have heard much of what he knew about Jesus from the lips of Peter, especially during the period immediately after his conversion?


#6

Hi,
I wouldnt know Ive never thoguht about it before. I have never studied the issue before either. It has never been brought up in any of the three churches I have attended in my lifetime.:confused: I looked in my bible and it said Matthew was the first Gospel so I assume what you are saying about protestant and catholics agreeing on Mark being first is more recent and after my bible was published.


#7

I know protestant groups who claim that St. Paul was the first pope and stuff like that out there.


#8

allforhim

so I assume what you are saying about protestant and catholics agreeing on Mark being first is more recent and after my bible was published.

The debate over who was first, Matthew or Mark, has been going on for about 100 years. A consensus has been forming, both among Catholics and Protestants, that Mark came first. However, Catholics and Protestants have decided to follow the tradition of 1,600 years by keeping the gospels in the older order.

My earlier point was that we owe perhaps a good more of the New Testament to the influence of Peter than we realize, even though his output of epistles is miniscule compared to Paul’s.


#9

Really? Which Protestant groups would these be?


#10

Gilbert Keith’s Post need posting again. It is measured and quite orthodox.

““My last impressions of scholarly research on this subject is that Catholics and Protestants now agree Mark, not Matthew, was the first Gospel written. Since Mark was a close disciple of Peter and his secretary, it stands to reason that the Gospel of Mark was an accumulation of material revealed by Peter to Mark. How else could it be, since Mark was not an eye witness to the life of Christ as Peter was? Therefore the Gospels receives their first impetus from Peter, not Paul. And doesn’t it likewise stand to reason that Paul would have heard much of what he knew about Jesus from the lips of Peter, especially during the period immediately after his conversion?””

Yes, I have read and heard for all my adult life that Mark was the scribe for St. Peter. Mark had more schooling and could write. And yes again. St. Paul was not an eyewittness to Jesus words nor acts; so Paul learned about Jesus FROM PETER.

Someone mentioned which would we misss the most; the Gospels or the epistles of Paul? Good thought.


#11

Peter, by direct name (either Simor or Peter), is mentioned 173 times in the New Testament. If you add up all the other apostles’ instances of name mentions in the New Testament including Paul it amounts to about 90 separate references. After Christ, Peter is mentioned most in the New Testament.

Amazing what the Gospel reveals softly in its depths.

Those Protestants and Evangelicals who intentionally overlook St. Peter’s special role in the Gospel, in fact intentionally overlook a big chunk of the New Testament, and therefore are lacking a deeper understanding of Christ’s intentions.


#12

I welcome Y’shua the Messiah after all He is the Messiah not Peter or Paul…and btw the word “Church” was never uttered by Christ the word "church"never existed until the 14th century.


#13

I don’t think that Protestants minimize Peter, it’s just that Paul had so much more to say in those Holy Scriptures which, as I am constantly reminded by my Catholic brethern, were complied and preserved by the Holy Catholic Church!


#14

And ? What excatly does that prove ?

The Gospel is not about Peter or Paul or Mary it is about Y’shua the Son of the Living G-d. So I fail to see your point here. Peter was never a Catholic, but stayed a Jew.


#15

Oh and who is more important ? Peter or Jesus ?


#16

How many times is Jesus mentioned? What about Mary? What do *those *statistics tell us?


#17

You’re joking aren’t you?


#18

I really do think that this is the reason.
Mind you, I have to agree with those who wonder why not more emphasis on the 4 Gospels…But when you are reading/studying the Bible, there is a whole lot of Paul’s writing there to talk about!!:slight_smile:

:yup:


#19

Either that, or perhaps http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/5.gifneeds to re-read the thread? 'Cause I gotta say that thishttp://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif makes no sense otherwise!!


#20

""I welcome Y’shua the Messiah after all He is the Messiah not Peter or Paul…and btw the word “Church” was never uttered by Christ the word "church"never existed until the 14th century. “”

What’s your authority for saying the word “church” was coined in the 14th Century? Do you know that Church is an English word and Jesus spoke ARAMAIC as did the APOSTLES.

Simon Bar Jonah was named “CEPHAS” (Aramain) by Jesus Himself. Cephas meams rock. In Matt Ch16, v 18 - 20 Jesus said, Cephas you are the cephas, and on this dephas I will build My Church.

Of course Jesus didn’t say “church” He was speaking in Aramaic. When Cephas was translated into Greek it became Petros and finally when Jerome translated it to Latin, Jerome used the Latin word Peter. We use it today and think it is an English word. Hey, we all know Jesus didn’t call St. Peter by the name Peter. He called him Cephas ( some spell it Kephas).


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.