This is erroneous because in the first place the doctrine of Rome on Peter is not based so much on what Peter or Paul wrote but on the gospels and the words to Peter in Mt. 16 and his leadership among the 11 in about half of Acts.
However, his explicit command to be baptised in Acts 2:38 is a primary text for Rome for one of their most primary doctrines, that of baptism itself effecting regeneration and justification thereby, and paedobaptism, while Paul states that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach. Yet both are preaching justification by a heart-faith that confesses the Lord Jesus, with no essential difference being btwn doing so by mouth or by body language in baptism, neither of which are meritorious in obtaining .justification.
While on the other hand the Protestant Churches with the least ritual and doctrine hold Paul up as their example while they are actually going by the teaching of peter.
That is simply not the case. You just stated that Peter supplied gave very little doctrine, while it is abundantly evident that Prot doctrine comes predominately from the writings of Paul, as he is the chief doctrinal writer. And they tend to minimize baptism in conversion.
Moreover, as shown by the grace of God in an extensive thread not long ago, it is clear that there is no real conflict btwn the gospel Peter preached vs that of Paul, nor is there in other aspects of teaching.
This is erroneous because in the first place the doctrine of Rome on Peter is not based so much on what Peter or Paul wrote but on the gospels and the words to Peter in Mt. 16 and his leadership among the 11 in about half of Acts.
I am only saying for some one who knew both Peter and Paul
I have no doubt they would associate the Church with the least doctrine to Peter and not Paul, and the ones with the more strict doctrines to Paul.
Head coverings for Nuns stands out pretty bright even if the head coverings are misunderstood.
Church fathers also comes from Paul.
But my main point is that what ever one Church preaches the other is going to be against.