Replies

But it seems very likely to me that even though the Catholic church holds Peter as the first Pope their doctrine is built around Paul`s teachings rather than Peters.

Where do you get the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, Mary of Catholicism, NT pastors distinctively named priests, consuming human flesh to obtain spiritual life, praying to created beings in Heaven, etc. out of Paul's writings?

All and more are actually absent from Scripture.

There are also a few other things.

What I should have said is that I can see some of the teachings of Paul in the Catholic Church which protestants are against and which I also do not believe in.

Mathew 23
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

1 Corinthians 4
14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

It looks to me like Paul is warning them that he is their father in the Gospel and to be followers of him, not of Christ but of him.

The Catholic Church go by those two very things.

the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy

Not only absent from Scripture, but from history as well, especially if one looks at primary sources. See for example Peter Lampe's landmark work, "From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries:"

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-extended-review-of-peter-lampes-from.html

The interesting thing is that during the first two centuries, Christianity in Rome was largely held by the "riff raff," the social outcasts, who were largely imports from other lands, many slaves captured and brought in to supply Rome with an inexpensive and disposable workforce. It was exactly as Paul said, not many wise, not many noble.

And for those first two centuries, while Christianity remained largely a curious cult not popular with the upper class, the assemblies remained diverse, without any discernible central leadership, and little impacted by the pagan influences surrounding them. The later-developed lists purporting to show a continuity of popes during that early period have proved to be impossible to support from primary sources.

According to Lampe, the early congregations were diverse and decentralized, with no single "Bishop of Rome." What did happen is that toward the end of the Second Century, power began to concentrate in those individuals in Rome who gathered the ecumenical funding for charitable projects outside of Rome, and it is from these late roots that a more traceable papacy would ultimately emerge. Their claim to the "Throne of Peter" was retroactive, but not based on demonstrable history.

Then, when the tide finally began to turn at the beginning of the Third Century, Christianity, again according to primary sources dug up by Lampe and others, began to be more accepted in the upper classes of Rome, where full-on cultural Romans set themselves to reconcile this curious new cult with the pagan religious atmosphere that dominated Rome at the time. It is easy to see how the Christian stories could supply them with a rich supply of material that to them seemed an honest correspondence with the pagan deities, practices, and ecclesiastical structures in which they had been immersed for centuries. They were going to "adopt" Christianity and dress it up in Roman attire, because that was what they knew. In hindsight, it would be a hard error to avoid, as we all have a tendency to see divine truth through our own culturally tainted lenses.

But no, there is no verifiable history of the papacy for the first two centuries.

Peace,

SR