Why I Don't Believe That Peter is the First Pope
As a former Roman Catholic, I remembered how often I was told that Peter was the first Pope and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. I realized it was all a lie. If Peter is the first Pope then why don't any of his writings even match up to the official teachings of the Roman Catholic institution? In short, his teachings are contradictory to the Roman Catholic institution and so is the rest of the Bible. If the Roman Catholic institution supposedly "gave" who they call as Protestants the Bible then why would they forbid it from being read to start with? The same goes for Peter's supposed papacy.
Note: I will quote Scriptures from the Good News Translation (GNT) but I am a King James Version onlyist.
The grammatical usage in Matthew 16:16-18 obviously shows Peter can't be the Rock
Roman Catholics say that Peter became the first Pope based on Matthew 16:16-18. One could argue that when Jesus called Peter "Satan" it was because that the privilege of papal infallibility where the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit so he doesn't commit heresy wasn't given yet. But let's take a look at the grammatical context.
Matthew 16:18
And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this Rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. (GNT)
The context is clear. The GNT even makes it clearer that Peter is a smaller rock and that he is not the same rock foundation. The illustration used by our Lord Jesus is like the engineer who tells the pastor who's saying, "Pastor, upon this rock I will build your church building." Jesus wasn't saying He was building the Church on Peter. Peter is a sinner saved by grace. Jesus is the Solid Rock.
1 Corinthians 10:4
And drank the same spiritual drink. They drank from the spiritual rock that went with them; and that Rock was Christ Himself.
It's amazing how Roman Catholics are already given the obvious meaning but they still insist that Peter is the Rock. No, Jesus is the Rock. What's also amazing that Augustine who is also considered an important figure in Roman Catholicism also said:
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On Him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).
And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).
Before His passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all. I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone’ (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198).
Peter was married and brought his wife with him
I remembered reading through a children's catechism that said Peter left his wife to become the first Pope. Others claim that maybe Peter's wife died along the way so he could become the first Pope. But here's what the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 9:5
Don't I have the right to follow the example of the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter, by taking a Christian wife with me on my trips?
Peter couldn't take his wife with him he divorced her or if she's dead. How can he take a dead person along with him? Then again, they could say that when she died that celibacy was imposed. The huge question is where is that in secular history to back their claim up? It's dishonest revisionism of history according to the convenience of the Roman Catholic institution.
If Peter left his wife, this would be a huge hit against him:
1 Peter 5:8
But if any do not take care of their relatives, especially the members of their own family, they have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever.
Remember, Jesus already warned in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9 that what God has put together then let no man put asunder. This would be a dilemma to anybody who advocates that Peter divorced his wife in a dilemma. If the Roman Catholic institution shouldn't allow divorce at all then why are they allowing Peter to get a divorce so he'll become Pope? Peter would have already been guilty of a mortal sin to start with if he was a divorcee.
Also, here's the instructions concerning church leaders. If Peter was the first Pope shouldn't he be considered a church leader?
1 Timothy 3:1-7
This is a true saying: If a man is eager to be a church leader, he desires an excellent work. A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, be sober, self-controlled, and orderly; he must welcome strangers in his home; he must be able to teach; he must not be a drunkard or a violent man, but gentle and peaceful; he must not love money; he must be able to manage his own family well and make his children obey him with all respect. For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of the church of God? He must be mature in the faith, so that he will not swell up with pride and be condemned, as the Devil was. He should be a man who is respected by the people outside the church, so that he will not be disgraced and fall into the Devil's trap.
To say that a church leader is different from a Roman Catholic priest is already serious doctrinal error and a play on words. Don't Roman Catholic priests officiate and lead their worship services and watch over their flock? That's another dilemma that they have to face.
Peter was wrong on doctrine already gets rid of the doctrine of papal infallibility
Papal infallibility doesn't mean that the Pope can't make any mistakes but here's the official stand of the Roman Catholic institution:
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
I can agree with Roman Catholicism on that area that the Pope isn't perfect but I can't agree with the whole stance that the Pope is supposedly preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. The incident alone in Galatians 2:11-13 was not just a friendly rebuke. It's not just like an incident where the cardinal tells Pope Francis something like "Your holiness, the resigned Benedict XVI didn't want to eat out at an Italian restaurant. He wanted to eat at a Greek restaurant on his birthday." Instead, Paul said this one:
Galatians 2:11-13
But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile believers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. The other Jewish believers also started acting like cowards along with Peter; and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action.
Peter's error was not something like the illustration of Pope Francis being told that he was wrong about where Benedict XVI wanted to eat on the latter's birthday. The problem was that Peter was definitely wrong in doctrine with how he dealt with the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. Would have the account been just Peter being wrong about Paul's choice of restaurant to where the apostles could eat out on a mission field then papal infallibility wouldn't be disproven.
Peter never elevated himself either
Peter only called himself a "fellow elder" and not the supreme shepherd. Here's what he said:
1 Peter 5:1-4
I, who am an elder myself, appeal to the church elders among you. I am a witness of Christ's sufferings, and I will share in the glory that will be revealed. I appeal to you to be shepherds of the flock that God gave you and to take care of it willingly, as God wants you to, and not unwillingly. Do your work, not for mere pay, but from a real desire to serve. Do not try to rule over those who have been put in your care, but be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the glorious crown which will never lose its brightness.
The Chief Shephrd to is referred to as the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, didn't Peter rebuke Cornelius for bowing down to him?
Acts 10:25-27
As Peter was about to go in, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and bowed down before him. But Peter made him rise. "Stand up," he said, "I myself am only a man." Peter kept on talking to Cornelius as he went into the house, where he found many people gathered.
The Pope gets all the bowing down and even the "humble" Pope gets bowed to and bows down. But Peter told Cornelius to stand up. More importantly, Peter declared Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone:
1 Peter 2:6
For the Scripture says, "I chose a valuable stone, which I am placing as the cornerstone in Zion; and whoever believes in him will never be disappointed."
When it meant by stone it means rock. Remember that in modern English a rock may refer to something you can throw or a huge rock or boulder. It's very important to know the context and usage of the words to avoid confusion.
Paul would have still addressed Peter even if the latter was out-of-town
Some Roman Catholic apologists insist that Paul didn't greet Peter because the latter was out of town when he wrote to the Romans. Let's assume that Peter was living in Rome went on vacation that time. Just because Peter was on vacation is not an excuse for Paul to forget him. Paul could have written something like, "Please give my regards to Peter when he returns home from his vacation." to the Romans. No, Peter was nowhere to be mentioned. It would be rude for Paul not to mention Peter assuming the latter even held office in Rome.
Romans 16:5-15
Greetings also to the church that meets in their house. Greetings to my dear friend Epaenetus, who was the first in the province of Asia to believe in Christ. Greetings to Mary, who has worked so hard for you. Greetings also to Andronicus and Junia, fellow Jews who were in prison with me; they are well known among the apostles, and they became Christians before I did. My greetings to Ampliatus, my dear friend in the fellowship of the Lord. Greetings also to Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ's service, and to Stachys, my dear friend. Greetings to Apelles, whose loyalty to Christ has been proved. Greetings to those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. Greetings to Herodion, a fellow Jew, and to the Christians in the family of Narcissus. My greetings to Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who work in the Lord's service, and to my dear friend Persis, who has done so much work for the Lord. I send greetings to Rufus, that outstanding worker in the Lord's service, and to his mother, who has always treated me like a son. My greetings to Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and all the other Christians with them. Greetings to Philologus and Julia, to Nereus and his sister, to Olympas and to all of God's people who are with them.
Also, Peter would later mention Paul in this way but had no mention of forgetting him in the Book of Romans:
2 Peter 3:15
Look on our Lord's patience as the opportunity he is giving you to be saved, just as our dear friend Paul wrote to you, using the wisdom that God gave him.
Peter would have probably also said, "Please tell Paul I was out of town when he wrote to the Romans." Nowhere in Scripture nor in history suggest that Peter was in Rome that time when the letter was written to the Romans. If Peter was ever in Rome it would probably be when Nero had arrested a lot of Christians in his empire. Maybe Peter only went to Rome some other time but never to serve as the first Pope.
A thorough study of Peter's two epistles find no real support for any extrabibical doctrine of the Roman Catholic institution
Only if Roman Catholics would bother to actually read the two epistles of Peter with care, I would like to ask them where in the epistles do they find Peter ordering stuff such as:
- Paying money in order to gain forgiveness
- That all must come to Mary first before they can come to Jesus and that all must regard her as their spiritual mother
- Praying to dead saints to mediate between men and Jesus
- The doctrine of transubstantiation that teaches while the bread and wine remains the same in appearance but the substance has been changed into that of the Body and Blood of Christ
- Praying the Rosary
- Priestly celibacy and the ordination of nuns
If it were so, Paul would have contradicted Peter. Peter had to be rebuked at one point for doctrinal error concerning Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. But when Peter wrote his epistles he was guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Pope were supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit to avoid doctrinal error then why is papal doctrine not in harmony even with Peter's two epistles?
See also: