First:
The Dogma of Papal Supremacy wasn’t formulated until around 800 AD or so. One of the disagreements between the two branches of the Catholic Church was over that exact dogma. The Pope has always had the title of “First among equals” He was the chairman of the board. He was the tie-breaker. And at that time, Peter would have laid hands on Linus when he was facing the cross on Vatican Hill. The fact that Peter wasn’t listed as Bishop of Rome on most written records doesn’t mean he never was. In addition the Universal Church, both halves, as well as the Church of England and Lutherans, have always acknowledged that fact.
ROFL So much for Apostolic succession and the whole Peter first Pope nonsense.
The fact that Scripture doesn't record the bodily assumption of Mary doesn't mean that she wasn't. The fact that Scripture doesn't record that Mary was immaculately conceived doesn't mean that she wasn't. The fact that Scripture doesn't record that purgatory doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't. And on and on it goes. The fact that Scripture doesn't say that Peter rode around on a stickhorse doesn't mean that he didn't.
Everything that Scripture DOES NOT SAY is what Catholicism is based on. Isn't that just the beauty of cultism. You cannot prove that it's not so because Scripture doesn't say that it is.
The logic of madmen. And the desperation of the deceived. All to receive that "special" cracker. That's what it is ALL about.
What a joke. If that's the best Catholics can do to support their contention that Peter was the first pope, that is so pathetic.
It sounds just like the argument about the assumption of Mary. Well, it doesn't say she wasn't so we can claim she was.
Where'd all the Catholic Bible literalists go again?