Refuting Papal Myths — "Peter Was Not a Pope"

Catholic Answers ^ | 9/23/2015 | Trent Horn

[ADSUM]

Myth #3: Peter was important, but he had no special authority that could be passed on to a successor like the pope.

Peter’s role as “chief apostle” is evident in the fact that he is mentioned more than any other apostle, often speaks for the whole group, and is placed first in every list of the apostles. Since Judas is always listed last, we can deduce that these lists were made in order of importance.

Moreover, Christ made Peter alone the shepherd over his whole flock (see John 21:15-17), and the book of Acts describes Peter’s unparalleled leadership in the early Church. This includes his authority to make a binding, dogmatic declaration at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). As the Anglican scholar J.N.D Kelly puts it, “Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church” (Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 1).

[ADSUM]

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

[ADSUM]

Peter was an uneducated man and was chosen by Jesus.

The Catholic Church has many issues and problems.

As Catholics we should try to solve problems, starting with ourselves. Does political bantering actually solve anything?

We will see if Pope Francis can help solve problems, but his role and that of the Catholic Church is to bring more people to Jesus so that we can join Him in Heaven. God will be his judge.

[driftdiver]

So you’re saying “Catholic” is the product of men and not God?

[Paperpusher]

You can go with the teachings of Jesus passed down through the Catholic Church or have your own interpretation.

I am satisfied to go with the teachings of Jesus passed down through the Bible, not changed by the interpretation of a man. This is the problem the Pharisees had that Jesus warned them about. Study the Bible and you will find you don’t need to believe interpretations from someone else. Think for yourself, let the Holy Spirit be your guide. The believer can go direct to God through his Son, Jesus. No middlemen required. I will be in prayer that you see the error in what you cling. By the way, I love you enough to try and show you the truth. I am saddened to see anyone in darkness. I do not hate Catholics, or anyone else seeking to know the truth. YMMV

[dartuser]

Christ made Peter alone the shepherd over his whole flock

In Paul's farewell to the Ephesian elders (plural) ...

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood

Definitive proof that there were multiple shepherds already and that the Holy Spirit appointed them (plural) as shepherds.

Now ... perhaps you will stop with the RC propaganda.

[Crusher138]

1 Peter (you know him, the guy who is supposed the first Pope), Chapter 2, Verses 4-10 (NIV)

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”[b]

Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”[c]
and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”[d]
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

This is indisputable proof, written by Peter himself, that we ALL, as Christians, are a royal priesthood! We have a responsibility, as Christians, to be God's representatives here on earth. A set apart priesthood was a Jewish construct that was rejected by Jesus and his disciples.

[ADSUM]

So you do accept the teachings of Jesus passed down through the Catholic Church in the Bible. That is great. I hope you fully understand those teachings.

Prove to me that any teachings of Jesus were changed by the Catholic Church. I believe that the Catholic Church has been true to the teachings of Jesus, while others have not.

I know some teachings have been changed by men and non Catholic churches who protested against the Catholic Church, such as abortion, same sex marriages, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, salvation, sacraments, sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.

So you do you believe that each individual is his own church and needs no help in finding the Truth? How do you know the Truth and not just an error in your thinking? So with your approach do you accept that everyone can have different interpretations of the teachings of Jesus?

So the protesters (men and women) have not helped you with your interpretation of the Truth? In your comment you seem to equate the Catholic Church and its members to the pharisees? WHY? We admit the Catholic Church is full of saints and sinners, and together we are trying to lead all to Heaven. Some Catholics do not follow all of the teachings of Jesus.

You said think for yourself. I do my best. However, I feel we get the same rote answers from non Catholics and not a true discussion of logical facts.

Thank you for your prayer, and I receive many graces from God through His sacraments, belonging to the Catholic Church and I am not in darkness. I will pray for you and your family so that you may lead a Christian life and be with Jesus in Heaven. I also do not hate non Catholics or Catholics, but hope and pray that all sinners live by the true teachings of Jesus. It would be a much better world.

[ADSUM]

Some will not accept the teachings of Jesus. It makes sense to have a leader in any organization. So you are saying that Christ did not want a leader to build His Church. I question the wisdom of that interpretation.

Finally, if Peter is not the rock upon whom the Church is built, then why did Jesus bother to change Simon’s name in the first place? As Protestant scholar Craig Keener writes in his commentary on Matthew, “[Jesus] plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his Church” (426).

But didn’t Peter refer to himself as a “fellow elder” and not as “pope” in 1 Peter 5:1? Yes, but in this passage Peter is demonstrating the humility that he is encouraging other priests to practice. He wrote, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another” (5:5), so exalting his status would have contradicted his message.

Besides, St. Paul often referred to himself as a mere deacon (see 1 Corinthians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 11:23) and even said he was “the very least of all the saints” (Eph. 3:8), but that did not take away from his authority as an apostle. Likewise, Peter’s description of himself as an elder does not take away from his authority as being “first” among the apostles (Matt 10:2).

Christ directed His leader and the Apostles to be a servant and Go Forth to Preach and Baptize all nations.

[ADSUM]

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and built by Peter, the Apostles and their successors and many believers.

[driftdiver]

Really? Where does it say that in the Bible?

[ADSUM]

Just another protester?

[driftdiver]

What?

[dartuser]

So you are saying that Christ did not want a leader to build His Church.

No, I'm saying the book of Acts demonstrably refutes your assertion that there is one person in charge. Paul call the elders (plural), tells them that they (plural) are to shepherd the church, because the Holy Spirit has made them overseers (plural).

I question the wisdom of that interpretation.

What interpretation? Some things are plain to understand by reading the text. This is one of them ...

Finally, if Peter is not the rock upon whom the Church is built, then why did Jesus bother to change Simon’s name in the first place?

Apparently Peter did not get the email from Christ that He changed his name ... as Peter calls himself ... Peter ...

Peter is demonstrating the humility that he is encouraging other priests to practice.

An elder is not a priest ... you are imposing your view on the text and hoping no one notices.