"Peter never claimed to be catholic, nor did Christ, as a matter of fact I challenge you to show me one scripture that calls Catholicism the only or true church, no instead, I don't believe Catholicism was ever even mentioned in the scriptures, and if you read for yourself scriptures, Peter was commissioned to preach to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. But they all were to preach under the same Gospel. Also you will find that it was Paul who condemned Peter for hypocrisy, if Peter was the final authority, then what prey tell was is that made him accountable to Paul?"
There are couple of problems with your comment, historically and scripturally. First, the tern "Catholic" or "catholic" was the term used by Christians from at the very latest about 107 AD to describe The Church and denotes its universality. In the West, for the most part, the term has come to mean the Roman Catholic Church and traditionally since the Great Schism in 1054, the Latin Church has claimed to be "The Church" and thus has, in its view, the only valid claim to be called the Catholic Church. The Anglicans also claim to be the "Catholic Church", though not with the same implications as the Latins do. In the East, both before and after the Great Schism, The Church has always called itself "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" because it believes that it has preserved the Faith of The Church inviolate since Pentecost. My point is that the exclusivity with which the Latin Church has, until probably very recently, used the term "Catholic" is because, in contradiction to the Orthodox belief, it has preserved inviolate the Faith. Thus, this issue about what or who is the Catholic Church is a product of the Great Schism.
Now you say that scripture does not mention the pope or the catholic (or Catholic) church. You are quite right, those words are not used. Where your analysis falls apart is in forgetting that it was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, pre Great Schism, which determined the canon of scripture and all those hierarchs who over nearly 400 years struggled and prayed over what was canonical scripture and what wasn't were hierarchs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and called themselves "Catholics" and their Church the "Catholic Church". I suggest, therefore, that you are reading something into scripture which isn't there, which is to say that because scripture doesn't speak of popes or the Catholic Church, there is not basis for either. Clearly the men who by divine inspiration established the canon of the NT didn't see that problem. Indeed, until the Protestant Reformation, nobody saw that problem.
Excellent post!
Now you say that scripture does not mention the pope or the catholic (or Catholic) church. You are quite right, those words are not used.
In that other pair of threads, it's pointed out that the word "Trinity" doesn't exist in the Bible either, but that doesn't mean the Bible does not teach the existence of the Trinity. Well, the Bible not specifically mentioning the Catholic Church or the Pope falls into a similar category, although not of the same order because theology and ecclesiology are not the same thing. But the analogy is still there. The Bible gives the foundation upon which we can perceive the other things, but with caution: because without proper guidance, one can easily misinterpret the Bible, as St. Peter warns us regarding how people even in his own time misinterpreted the writings of St. Paul. So we should not be alarmed to see confusion still present.
Also, the Ethiopian eunuch asked how he could possibly understand the Scriptures without someone to help him. By the way, he received Baptism from the apostle who was miraculously transported to him.